GRIZZLY 

I3 E A R 

P I- A N 

_. 
Grizzly Bear

Recovery Plan

(Original Approved: January 29, 1982)

Prepared by: Dr. ChristopherServheen

GrizzlyBear Recovery Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

NaturalScience 312

University of Montana

Missoula, Montana 59812

Approved:

6Th

nal Director, U.S. Fish and Wild6e Service

Date
Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the

species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. FishandWildlife Service, sometimes with the assistanceof recovery

teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended

contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not

necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other

thanthe U.S. Fish andWildlifeService,involved in the planformulation. They represent the officialposition

of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service only after they have been signed by the RegionalDirector or Director

as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as didated by new findings, changes in

species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.

Literature citations should read as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzlybear recovery plan. Missoula, MT 181 pp.

Additional copies may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service

5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

301-429-6403

or:

1-800-582-3421

The fee forthe Plan varies depending on the number of pages.
Executive Summary of the Recovery Plan for the Grizzly Bear

Current Status

The grizzly bear( Ursusarcios horribilis) waslistedas threatened on July 28, 1975. The original recovery plan

was approved on January 29, 1982. This is the first revision of that plan. The grizzly bear was originally

distributed in varioushabitats throughoutWesternNorthAmerica fromCentralMexico to the ArcticOcean.

Currentdistributionisreduced to lessthan2 percent of itsformerrange southof Canadain five, andperhaps

six, smallpopulations with an estimated total population of 800-1,000bears. Four regions, or ecosystems—

the NorthernContinental DivideandCabinet / YaakinMontana,the Selkirks of Idaho andWashington, and

the North Cascades of Washington—accommodate grizzly populations that are contiguous withCanadian

populations. Agrizzly population alsoexistsin theYellowstone ecosystem. These represent the five known

populations. The Bitterroot ecosystem in Idaho represents the possible sixth population. It contains

sufficient habitat but few if any grizzly bears at this time. A seventh area, the San Juans ecosystem in

Colorado, currently is being considered for evaluation, but there has beenno confirmed record of grizzly

bears in the San Juans since 1979.

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors

The grizzly has abroad range of habitattolerance. Contiguous, relatively undisturbedmountainous habitat

having a high level of topographic and vegetative diversity characterizes most areas where the species

remains. Habitat loss and direct and indirect human-causedmortality isrelated to the decline in numbers.

Recovery Objective

Delisting of each of the remaining populations by population as they achieve the recovery targets.

Recovery Priority

The recovery priority for the grizzlybearhasbeendesignated as 6C,which indicates asubspecies with ahigh

threat and a high recovery potential that is or maybe in conflict with some form of economic activity.

Recovery Criteria

Each individual population will remain listed until its specific recovery criteria are met. The species

throughout the lower 48 States can be delisted when the populations in all establishedrecovery zones have

been delisted. (The San Juan ecosystem is being evaluated as a possible recovery zone and is not yet

considered established.) Recovery criteria include a minimum number of females with cubs seen annually,

distribution of family groups throughout the recovery zone, and a limit on human-caused mortality.

Actions Needed

1. Minimize sources of human-bear conflict.

2. Limit habitatloss or degradationbecause of human actions such as road building, timber harvest, oil

and gas exploration and development, mining, and recreation.

3. Improve habitat and/or security where applicable.

4. Understand the relationship between bear density and habitat value to better understand limiting

factors.

5. Develop techniques to successfully move bears into areas where the populations are in need of

augmentation.

ii
6. Improve public relations andeducationto developbettersupport forand understanding of the species

and to minimize adverse human actions.

7. Continue grizzly bear and habitat research to ensure adequate scientific knowledge is available on

which to base management decisions.

Total Estimated Cost of Recovery

$26,000,000.

Date of Recovery

This variesby ecosystem. Some ecosystems,suchasthe NorthCascades andtheBitterroot ecosystems,likely

will notbe recovered for 30-40 years,while some other ecosystems such as theNorthern ContinentalDivide

Ecosystem may be recovered sooner.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Disclaimer1

Executive SummaryU

Table of Contents iv

Foreward vii

Document Preparation and Acknowledgements ix

Prefacex

PART I: INTRODUCTION1

HistoryI

Physical Characteristics1

Social Organization and Behavior2

Population Characteristics2

Density2

Home Range3

Age and Sex Structure4

Natality4

Mortality5

Natural Mortality5

Human-Caused Mortality5

Habitat Conditions7

Food7

Cover7

Denning8

Past Distribution8

Current Distribution/Status 10

Legal Status 13

PART II: NEEDS FOR RECOVERY 15

Goal of the Recovery Plan 15

Requirements for Recovery 16

Perspective On Areas of Recovery 17

Perspective On Monitoring Methods 18

Rationale 20

Females With Cubs 20

Occupancy 20

Mortality 20

Effective Habitat 21

Habitat Monitoring 22

Island Populations and Grizzly Be&rs 23

Linkage Zone Assessment 24

Population Viability Management 26

iv
Management of Genetic Diversity 27

Ecosystem Management and Benefits to Other Species 28

Human Social Factors in GrizzlyBear Recovery 28

Summary 31

PART III. RECOVERY 33

Step Down Outline 34

Yellowstone Grizzly BearRecovery Zone 39

NorthernContinental Divide Recovery Zone 59

Cabinet/Yaak Recovery Zone 81

Selkirks Recovery Zone 99

Bitterroot, North Cascades, and San Juan Evaluation Areas 117

Literature Cited 122

PART IV: IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 131

Abbreviations 131

Grizzly BearRecovery Implementation Schedule 132

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Historical Grizzly BearDistribution in the Conterminous 48 States 9

2. Present Grizzly BearEcosystems in the Conterminous 48 States 11

3. Proposed Linkage Zone Assessment Areas 25

4. Major Variables and Important Forces in WildlifePolicy Implementation 29

5. YellowstoneEcosystem Recovery Zone 39

6. Unduplicated Females with Cubs in Yellowstone Ecosytem 46

7. Northern Continental Divide Recovery Zone 59

8. Unduplicated Females with Cubs in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem 67

9. Known Human-Caused GrizzlyBear Mortalities in the Northern

Continental Divide Ecosystem 67

10. Cabinet/Yaak Recovery Zone 81

11. SelkirkRecovery Zone 99

12. North CascadesEvaluation Area 117

13. Bitterroot Evaluation Area 119

LIST OF TABLES

1. Position Versus InterestMatrix 30

APPENDICES

A. Selected Pages from the Interagency Grizzly BearGuidelines 137

B. Road Management in GrizzlyBear Habitat 143

C. Report of the Yellowstone.Grizzly BearPopulation Task Force 151

D. Yellowstone Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Survivorship Table 161

E. Major Changesfrom the 1982 Plan to the 1993 Revised Plan 165

F. Revised Reporting Rules for Recovery Plan Targets 169

G. Summary of Public Comments 173

V
Forward

“Escudilla”

Life in Arizona was bounded underfoot by grama grass, overhead by sky, and on the horizon by Escudilla.

To the north of the mountain you rode on honeycolored plains. Look up anywhere, anytime, and you saw

Escudilla.

To the east you rode over aconfusion of wooded mesas. Each hollow seemed its own smallworld, soaked

in sun, fragrant with juniper,and cozywith the chatterof pinon jays. Buttop out on aridge andyou at once

became a speck in an immensity. On its edge hung Escudilla.

To the south lay the tangled canyons of BlueRiver, full of whitetails, wild turkeys, and wilder cattle. When

youmissed a saucy buckwavinghis goodbye overthe skyline, andlookeddownyoursightstowonderwhy,

you looked at a far blue mountain: Escudilla...

To thewest billowed the outliers of theApache NationalForest. We cruised timberthere, converting the tall

pines,forty by forty, into notebookfiguresrepresenting hypothetical lumber piles. Pantingup acanyon,the

cruiser felt a curious incongruity between the remoteness of his notebook symbols and the immediacy of

sweaty fingers, locust thorns, deer-flybites, andscolding squirrels. Buton the nextridge acoldwind,roaring

across a green sea of pines, blew his doubts away. On the far shore hung Escudilla.

The mountain boundednot only our work and our play, but even our attempts to get a good dinner. On

winter evenings weoften tried to ambush amallardon the riverflats. The wary flockscircledthe rosy west,

the steel-bluenorth, andthen disappearedinto the inky black of Escudilla. Ifthey reappeared on set wings,

we had a fat drake for the Dutch oven. If they failed to reappear, it was bacon and beans again.

There was, in fact, only one place from which you did not see Escudilla on the skyline: thatwas the top of

Escudillaitself. Up there you could notsee themountain, but you could feel it. The reasonwasthe bigbear.

Old Bigfoot was a robber-baron, and Escudilla was his castle. Each spring, when the warm winds had

softened the shadows on the snow, the old grizzly crawled out of hishibernation denin the rock slides and,

descendingthe mountain, bashed in the headof acow. Eatinghisfill, he climbed backto hiscrags, andthere

summered peaceably on marmots, cones, berries, and roots.

I once saw one of his kills. The cow’s skull and neckwere pulp, as if she had collided head-onwith afast

freight.

No one ever saw the old bear, but in the muddy springs about the base of the cliffs you saw his incredible

tracks. Seeing them made the most hardbitten cowboys aware of bear. Whereverthey rode they saw the

mountain, andwhen they saw themountain theythought ofbear. Campfire conversationran to beef, bailes,

and bear. Bigfoot claimed for his own only a cow a year, and few square miles of useless rocks, but his

personality pervaded the county.

Those were the days when progress first came to the cow county. Progress had various emissaries.

One was the first transcontinental automobilist. The cowboys understood thisbreaker of roads; he talked

the same breezy bravado as anybreaker of broncos.

They did not understand, but they listened to and looked at, the pretty lady in blackvelvet who came to

enlighten them, in a Boston accent, about woman suffrage.

Vi
They marveled, too,at the telephone engineerwho strung wires on the jumpers andbrought instantaneous

messages from town. An old man asked whether thewire could bring him a side of bacon.

One spring, progress sent still another emissary, a government trapper, a sort of St. George in overalls,

seeking dragonsto slay at government expense. Werethere, he asked, any destructive animals in need of

slaying? Yes, there was the big bear.

The trapper packed his mule and headed for Escudilla.

In amonth hewas back, his mule staggeringunder aheavyhide. Therewas only onebarn in townbig enough

to dry it on. He had tried traps, poison, and all his usual wiles to no avail. Then he had erected a set-gun

in a defile through which only the bear could pass, andwaited. The last grizzly walkedinto the string and

shot himself.

It wasJune. The pelt wasfoul, patchy, andworthless. It seemedto usrather an insult to deny the last grizzly

the chance to leave agood pelt as amemorial to his race. All he leftwas a skull in the NationalMuseum, and

a quarrel among scientists over the Latin name of the skull.

It was only after we pondered on these thingsthat we began to wonder who wrote the rules for progress.

Since the beginning, time hadgnawed atthe basaltichulkof Escudilla,wasting,waiting,andbuilding. Time

built threethings on the old mountain, a venerable aspect, a community of minor animals and plants, and

a grizzly.

The government trapperwho tookthe grizzly knewhe hadmade Escudillasafe for cows. He did not know

he had toppled the spire off an edifice a-building since the morning stars sang together.

The bureauchief whosent the trapperwas abiologist versed in the architectureof evolution, but he did not

knowthatspires mightbe asimportantas cows. Hedid not foresee that within two decadesthe cow country

would become tourist country, and as such have greater need of bearsthan of beefsteaks.

The Congressmenwhovotedmoney to clear the ranges of bears were the sons of pioneers. They acclaimed

the superior virtuesof the frontiersman,but theystrove withmight andmain to makean endof the frontier.

We forest officers, who acquiesced in the extinguishment of the bear,knewalocal rancherwhohad plowed

up adaggerengravedwith the nameof oneof Coronado’s captains. We spoke harshly of the Spaniards who,

in their zealfor gold and converts, hadneedlessly extinguished the nativeIndians. It did not occurto usthat

we, too, were the captains of an invasion too sure of its own righteousness.

Escudilla still hangs on the horizon, but when you see it you no longer think of bear. It’s only a mountain

now.

Aldo Leopold

From A Sand County Almanac: Sketches Here and There

byAldo Leopold. Copyright 1949 by Oxford University Press, Inc.

Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press, Inc.

Vii
Document Preparation and Acknowledgments

This plan isthe result of the efforts of many individuals and agencies with expertise and responsibilities

relatedto grizzly bears and their management. DonL.Brown,GrizzlyBearRecoveryPlanLeader, Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP), wrote the original version of the Plan through an

InteragencyPersonnel Act assignment fundedby the U.S. FishandWildlifeService. TheDirectorof theU.S.

FishandWildlifeService signedthe originalversion of the Plan on January 29, 1982. Stephen P.Mealey, U.S.

Forest Service,Rocky MountainRegion, provided principal planningsupport for the original version of the

Plan, contributing 20 workingdaysin the areas of conceptualdesign andorganization,grizzlybear ecology,

and grizzly bear management guidelines. JohnWeaver, U.S. Forest Service, and Wayne G. Brewster, U.S.

FishandWildlife Service, alsoprovided primary support in the areas of plandesign andformulation. Other

individualsandagenciesmaking significant contributions were JohnandFrankCraighead, RichardKnight,

Charles Jonkel, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST), and members of the Border Grizzly

Project. Substantial assistance andsupport alsowas provided by Regions I and 4 of the U.S. Forest Service,

the National Park Service, the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the State

wildlife agenciesof Idaho, Montana,Wyoming, andWashington,Bureau of Indian Affairs,Blackfeet Tribe,

Salish-Kootenai Tribe, and personnel of the Canadian Wildlife Service and British Columbia Wildlife

Division.

In special acknowledgment to Mr. John Green fordevoting over a decade of his careerto the protection and recovery

ofthe grizzlybear. His tireless efforts in strivingforresponsibleand cooperativemanagement ofgrizzly bears has been

an inspiration to all who have worked with him on grizzly bear recovery. Through his invaluable contributions, the

Service and other agencies are implementing new approaches and policies in achieving recovery ofthe grizzly bear.

Dr.Christopher Servheen, GrizzlyBearRecovery Coordinator(Coordinator) for the U.S. Fish andWildlife

Service, incorporated revisions into the Plan with substantial assistance from Anne Vandehey, wildlife

biologistfor theU.S. Fish andWildlife Service. Input on all phases of the revision of the Plan wasreceived

from the agencies of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

facilitated the revision process and incorporated the revised portions into the original plan text.

VIII
Preface

The grizzly bearis a symbolic and living embodiment ofwild nature uncontrolled by man.

Entering into grizzly country presentsa unique opportunity - to be part ofan ecosystem in

which man is not necessarily the dominant species (Herrero 1970).

Under authority of theEndangeredSpecies Act (Act),the U.S. FishandWildlife Servicelistedthe grizzly bear

(Ursus arctos horribilis) as a threatened species in 1975. Since the arrival of Europeans in North America,

grizzly bearpopulations have been eliminated fromall but approximately 2 percent of their original range

in the lower 48 States. The recovery of the grizzly is directed at establishing viable populations in the six to

seven areas in parts of four to five States where the grizzlywas known to or believed to exist when it was

listed in 1975. Recovery in other areas of the bear’s historic range where adequate space andhabitat exists

is under consideration.

ix

Introduction

The grizzly bear ( Ursusarcios horiibilis) waslistedas threatened on July 28,1975. The original recoveryplan

was approved on January 29, 1982. This is the first revision of that plan. A discussion of the major changes

fromthe 1982 recovery plan and the 1993 revision can be found in Appendix E.

The following is an edited summaryof the history andbiology of the grizzly bear asit appearedin the 1982

GrizzlyBearRecovery Plan (U.S. Fishand WildlifeService 1982). For amore comprehensive reviewof this

information including new literature, the reader is referredto the GrizzlyBear Compendium (IGBC 1987)

and the literature listed in the Compendium.

History

The ancestorof all present daybrown bears was theEtruscan bear (Ursus etruscus)that lived in the forests

of Asia about 2 million years ago (Kurten 1968). During the warm interglacial periods of the Ice Age,

retreating ice left vast areas of tundra-type, treeless vegetation. The evolution of some bear populations

using this extensive new resource gave rise to the brown bear (U. arcios) in Asia.

Ursus minimus was the ancestor of both the Asiatic blackbear (U. thibetanus) and the American blackbear

(U. american us). Members of thisblackbearlinewandered into NorthAmericamore than500,000years ago

(Kurten 1968). Isolated fromtheir ancestors, theNorth American population adapted to the resources of the

continent, eventually evolving into the American blackbear (Herrero 1972).

Much later, about 50,000 years ago, brown bears crossed the treeless BeringLand Bridge and spread into

North America(Churcher andMorgan 1976). Two subspecies of brown bears occupy North America; the

grizzly bear(U. a. horribilis) on themainland, andtheKodiakbear(U.a. middendorifi) onKodiak, Shuyak,and

Afognak Islands (Rausch 1963).

For brown bearsto exploitthe rich periglacialhabitats, their ancestral forest adaptations had to bemodified.

Away from the protection of forest cover, morphological andbehavioral changes were necessary for the

bears to protect their young from other bears, wolves, and several now extinct Pleistocene carnivores. A

sudden burst of violence or an effective threat by themother toward anyperceived threat wasimportant to

the survival of her cubs. This behavioral adaptation of greater aggressivenessto successfully care for cubs

in this new habitat (Herrero 1970, 1972, 1978) is quite likely to have subsequently earned this subspecies of

brown bear the name “horribilis.”

Physical Characteristics

Grizzly bears are generally larger than black bears and can be distinguished by longer, curved claws,

humped shoulders, anda face that appears to be concave. A wide range of coloration from light brown to

nearly blackis common. Guardhairs are often paledat the tips;hence the name “grizzly.” Spring shedding,

new growth, nutrition, and climate all affect coloration.

In the lower 48 States, the average weight of grizzlies is 400-600 poundsfor males and 250-350 for females

(Greer, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, pers. comm. 1980). An occasional male may

exceed 800 to 1,000 pounds. Adults stand 3.5 to 4.5 feet atthe hump when on all fours, and mayrear up on

their hind legs to over 8 feet.

Introduction I Part One • 1
The muscle structure in grizzly bearsis developed formassive strength, quickness, and running speeds up

to 45 milesper hour. Movementincludesthe normal position on all fours and an uprightposition on the hind

legs thatimproves the opportunity to see and smell.

Grizzly bears are relatively long-lived and individuals are known to havelived 40 years (Storer and Tevis

1955); a captive bearlived 47 years (Curry-Lindahl 1972). Pearson (1975) listedthe oldest age classes as 28

years for males and 23 years for females; and Craighead et al. (1974), working in Yellowstone, found the

oldest age was 25.5 yearsfor both sexes. A femalegrizzly bearin the Cabinet Mountains was 34 years old

as of 1989.

Social Organization and Behavior

Adult bears are individualistic in behavior and normally are solitary wanderers. Except when caring for

youngor breeding, grizzly bears have solitary patternsof behavior. Individuals probably react fromlearned

experiences. Two individual bears may respond in opposite ways to the same situation (Scott 1964,

Riegelhuth 1966). Strict territoriality is unknown, with intraspecific defense limited to specific food

concentrations, defense of young, and surprise encounters.

Each bear appears to have a minimum distance within which another bear or person cannot enter; any

intrusion of this distance mayevoke a threat or an attack (Herrero 1970, Mundyand Flook1973). Surprise

is an important factorin many confrontations involving bears and humans. A female with young exhibits

an almost reflexive response to any surprise intrusion or perceived threat to her “individual distance”

(Mundy and Flook1973, Herrero 1976). While females with youngcompose lessthan20 percent of the total

grizzly population, they caused at least 79 percent of the injuries to people during the 1970-1973 period

(McArthur 1979).

Defense of a food supply is another cause of confrontation between humans and bears. Bears generally

defend akill or carrion out of perceivedneed, and people defendsupplies andproperty for the samereasons.

If campers take reasonable care of their garbage and food supplies, and if back-country hikers make noise

(bells,singing, talking) to avoid suddenlysurprising bearswhile traveling through grizzly bearhabitat, most

grizzly bears will flee in response to humanintrusions (Herrero 1976).

Grizzlybears of all ageswill congregate readily at plentifulfood sourcesand formasocial hierarchy unique

to that groupingof bears (Hornocker 1962, Craighead 1979). Matingseason isthe only time that adult males

and femalestolerate one another, and thenit is only during the estrous period. Other social affiliations are

generally restricted to family groups of mother and offspring, siblings that may stay together for several

years after being weaned, and an occasional alliance of subadults or several females and their offspring

(Murie 1944, 1962; Jonkel and Cowan 1971; Craighead 1976; Egbert and Stokes 1976; Glenn et al. 1976;

Herrero 1978).

Population Characteristics

Density

The mean density of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Ecosystem (YGBE), which contains

relatively dry grizzly habitat, was computed to be one bearper 34 mi2 (88 kin2) by Craighead etal. (1974);

inGlacier NationalPark,arelativelymesic, more productive grizzly habitat,the meandensitywas estimated

byMartinka (1974) to be onebearper 8 mi2 (20 kin2) on a290 mi2 studyarea; in southeasternBritishColumbia,

grizzly density was estimated to be approximately one bear per 6 mi2 (16 kin2) (McLellan 1989); in the

2 • Part One I Introduction
Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) outside of Glacier Park, densitywas estimated to be one

bearper 15-23 mi2 (39-60 kin2) (Dood etal. 1986); inMt. McKinley NationalPark, amean densityof onebear

per 11 mi2 (28 ~2) was found (Dean 1976); and on Kodiak Island,Troyer and Hensel (1964) found grizzly

bear density greaterthan oneper 75 mi2 (194 kin2). Knight et. al. (1988) estimated a density of onebearper

16 mi2 (40.8kin2) forthe U.S. portion of the Selkirks Ecosystem(SE). Weilgus et al. (1993) estimated densities

of one bear per 27 mi2 (71 kin2) for the U.S. and one per 17 mi2 (43 kin2) forthe Canadian portion of the SE.

Densities of grizzlies appear to be determined in part by the nature of the habitat, and the abundance and

quality of foods.

No estimates of density or total population are made for the remaining grizzly bear ecosystems in the

conterminous 48 States.

Home Range

“Space isaspecies’ communal homerange;the size is determined by the cruising radiusof thatspecies. This

home range must contain all of the species’requirements—food, cover andwater—forboth sexes andall age

classes, for all seasons and for all of the species’ activities.” (King 1938).

In theory, territoriality is the optimal mechanism to space individuals where resources are plentiful and

predictable (Geist 1974). To defend a territory of low food availability by overt aggression would not be

beneficialto the bear. The energycost of defendingthe area wouldoutweighthe return in resources(Bunnell

and Tait 1978). Territoriality, if it occurs in grizzly bearbehavior, also serves as a population regulating

mechanism by spacing individualbears and therebylimitingpopulation density (Etkin 1964). While there

is little evidence that grizzly bears exhibit territoriality, a solitary grizzly bear appears to maintain an

individualspacing betweenitself andother bears. The distance maintainedmayvarywith circumstance and

season. Females with cubs may enforce a distance of several hundred meters (Herrero 1970, Cole 1972,

Pearson 1975).

The home ranges of adult bears frequently overlap. The home ranges of adult male grizzlies are generally

two to four timeslarger than that of females(Pearson 1975, Craighead 1976,Herrero 1978,Servheenand Lee

1979,AuneandKasworm 1989,Comptonetal. 1990,KaswormandThier1991b,Blanchard andKnight 1991).

Adult male blackbear home ranges are also significantlylarger thanthe home ranges of females(Jonkel and

Cowan 1971. Kemp 1972, Amstrupand Beecham 1976, Rogers 1977). The home ranges of both grizzly and

black bear females appear to be smaller while they are with cubs, but ranges expand when the young are

yearlingsin ordertomeet increased foraging demands (Kemp 1972, Pearson 1975, Herrero 1978, Russell et

al. 1978).

Grizzlybears disperse as subadults; however, their pattern of dispersal isnot welldocumented. Dispersing

young males apparently leave their mothers’ home range and their dispersal may be mediated by the

avoidance of the home ranges of established adults. This increases their susceptibility to mortality and

human/bear conflict by findingandutilizingunnatural food sources. Youngfemales mayestablish ahome

range soon after family breakup, often within the vicinity of their mothers’ home range (Pearson 1975).

Grizzlybearmothers may toleratefemaleoffspring and may shift their home range to accommodate them.

Home range sizes of both grizzly and blackbears vary in relation to food availability, weather conditions,

and interactions with other bears. In addition, individual bears may extend their range seasonallyor from

one year to the next (Jonkel and Cowan 1971, Greer 1972, Craighead 1976, Rogers 1977, Russell et al. 1978).

Introduction I Part One • 3
Age and Sex Structure

Age and sexstructures are dynamic variables influenced by many factorssuch as habitat conditions, time

of the year observations aremade,hunting, andothers. Pearson (1972), working with ahuntedpopulation

in the Yukon, found24 percent cubs andyearlings, 32 percent subadults (2-6 years) and44 percent adults.

The population structure of grizzly bears on Kodiak Island (hunted) was 26 percent cubs, 22 percent

yearlings, 27 percent subadults, and 25 percent adults (Troyer and Hensel 1964).

Craighead etal. (1974) recordedan average age composition in ahuntedpopulation to be 18.6 percent cubs,

13.0 percent yearlings, 24.9 percent subadults (2-4 years), and43.7 percent adults, during the period 1959

through 1967 in the YGBE. Blanchard and Knight (1980) recorded 6.5 percent cubs,16.1 percent yearlings,

37.1 percent subadults, and 40.3 percent adults for the area in 1980. The population in the Yellowstone

ecosystem had not beenhunted since 1974.

Age andsexclassificationsfor smallstudyareasmaynot reflect true compositionbecause of the home range

size differences between sexes and overlapping ranges. Larger ranges and mobility of males may bias

samples toward males (Hornocker 1962, Troyer and Hensel 1964, Jonkel and Cowan 1971, Kemp 1972,

Egbert and Stokes 1976). Higher male vulnerability to mortality throughout their life span resultsin a sex

ratio in favor of females in adult age classes, although samples based on capture information usually are

biased in favor of males because of their higher vulnerability to capture.

Natality

Mating appears to occur fromlate May through mid-July, with apeak inmid-Juneand estrus lasting from

afewdays toover a month (Craigheadet al. 1969, Herrero andHamer 1977). Femalesin estrus are receptive

to practically all adult males (Homocker 1962). Amalemayisolate and defendafemalein areas of lowbear

density; but in areas of high density, males and females both maybe promiscuous (Craighead et al. 1969).

Age of firstreproduction and littersize varies andmaybe relatedto nutritional state (Herrero 1978, Russell

et al. 1978). Age at firstreproduction varies from3.5 to 8.5 years of age, andaverages 5.5 yearsin the areas

studiedin the lower 48 States. Littersize varies fromoneto four cubs withan average of approximately two

throughout much of the range of the species. Reproductive intervals for females average 3 years, and

animals that lose young early in the year may come into estrus and breed again that same year.

The limited reproductive capacity of grizzly bears precludes anyrapid increase in the population. Grizzly

bearshaveoneof the lowest reproductive rates among terrestrial mammals,resultingprimarilyfromthelate

age of first reproduction, small average littersize, and the long intervalbetween litters.

Assuming initiation of breeding at 4.5 years, a female grizzly bear would add her first recruitment to the

population when she was 5.5 years. The age of second breeding likely would not occur until she is 7.5.

Therefore, during the first 10 years of her life, afemale grizzly bear is capable of adding only two litters to

the total population. If there are lifters of two cubs with a 50:50 sexratio, anda 50 percent survivorship of

youngto age 5.5, atbest she can replace herselfwith onebreeding age female in the first decade of her life.

Assuming optimum conditions, 50 percent survivorship to age 5.5, equal sex ratios, and using the oldest

documented female weaning her last litter at age 24.5 years (Craighead et al. 1974, Wakkinen, Idaho

Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1991), a single female wouldhave the potential capability of

adding only three and one-half females to the population during her lifetime. Given a normal rate of

mortalityfor all age classes, aprotracted reproductive cycle of3.4 yearsto 7 years,andthe increasing stresses

4 • Part One/Introduction
of habitat encroachment by humans, actual reproductive expectancy is usually far less. Obviously,

providing maximum protection for females is essential to recovery. Males are believed to mature sexually

at 4.5 years, but larger, dominant males may preclude young adult males from siring many offspring

(Hornocker 1962).

The time lapse from conception to birth of cubs is between 229 and 266 days (Banfield 1974). A delay in

blastocyst implantation postpones embryonic development (following a mating season that extends from

lateMay to mid-July) until lateNovember or December, andis believed to be approximately0-30 days after

denning (Craighead et al. 1969) with birth occurring near February 1.

Mortality

Natural Mortality

The causes of natural mortality forgrizzly bears or other bears are not wellknown. Bears do kill each other.

Itis knownthat adult males killjuveniles and that adults alsokillother adults. Parasites and diseasedo not

appearto be significant causes of natural mortality (Jonkel and Cowan 1971, Kistchinskii 1972,Mundy and

Flook 1973, Rogers and Rogers 1976) but they may very well hasten the demise of weakened bears.

There are insufficient data to fullyassessthe effects of predation on younger bears by adult bears. If young

bears are not killed directly by aggressive adults, as dispersing subadults they may be forced to choose

submarginal home ranges or areas nearhuman habitation equally dangerous to their survival.

Natural mortality during the denning period is not well documented. Several authors believe some bears

die during denning, especially followingperiods of food shortages. However, fewsuch deaths have been

recorded.

Upon emergence from the den, bears move considerable distances from high, snow-covered elevations to

lower elevationsto reachpalatable, emerging vegetation, or to feedon winter-killedor weakened ungulates

on foothill winter ranges. This type of movement often occurs on the Rocky Mountain front region of

Montana. This movement of bears to lower elevations often takes them nearareas of humanhabitation, and

mayincrease the incidence of human/bear conflicts. Asimilar movement often can occurin the fall due to

ripening of fruit and berries at lower elevations. This type of movement occurs on the west front of the

MissionMountains in Montana (Servheen and Lee 1979).

Human-Caused Mortality

Human-caused mortality can be classified into six major categories. These categories include: (1) direct

human/bear confrontations (hikers, backpackers, photographers, hunters, etc.); (2) attraction of grizzly

bears to improperly stored food and garbage associated with towns, subdivisions, farms, hunter camps,

campers, loggers, fishermen, backpackers, andother sources; (3) careless livestockhusbandry,including the

failure to dispose of dead livestock in a manner that minimizes grizzly interactions; (4) protection of

livestock; (5)the erodingof grizzlybearhabitatforeconomicvalues; and(6) hunting(lawfulandillegal). The

first five act to reduce space and increase the potential for human-bear conflicts.

Grizzly bear habitat steadily decreased during the initial westward movement of settlers. Bears were

conditioned to avoid conflict with humans by the actions of those earlysettlers. In later years, bears have

been attracted to carrion, waste products of construction camps, recreational camps, and to the sprawling

residential areas that have invaded their habitat. Today, habitat degradation continues in many areas.

Subdivisions, power line corridors, logging roads, recreational development, trails, sightseeing gondolas,

Introduction / Part One • 5
energyand mineral exploration or development, andsimplymore people everywhere degrade grizzly bear

habitatby colocatinggrizzly bears and people. Bears are attractedto sources of food associated with human

developments. Bearmortalities haveresulted frombears feeding along railroad tracks at grain spillsites.

This attractionof bears to human-related foods andthe learning that human-use areas are productive places

to seek food is called food conditioning. The result is “problem” or “nuisance” bears that have learned to

cause damage to property,havelearned to prey on livestock, andhave become a threat to humanlives. This

often leads to illegal shooting or becomes a cause for the removal of the bear. High levels of necessary

management removals or illegalshootingcan lead to the eventual confinement of bears to ever-decreasing

fragments of their former range and a decline in the total grizzly bear population.

Areas that provide high levels of human/bear contact that result in little or no negative experience forthe

bearmay remove anybarrier of fear or uncertainty the grizzly bear usuallywould exhibit toward humans.

This loss of natural fear and avoidance of humans is called habituation, resultingin bears that begin to live

in close proximity to people or human-use areas. Such habituated bears are not necessarily also foodconditionedbut,as theyspendmore time in associationwith humans,theyare more likely to obtain humanrelatedfood andbecome food-conditioned. These learnedbehaviors can be taught by femalesto their cubs,

or learned by dispersing subadults that find a food source left by careless people. This transmission of

behavior from mothers to cubs can be thought of as a cultural transmission of information through

generations of bears. The end result of thislearned behavioral pattern is usually the loss of these bears,

because many eventually become a threat to human life or property. Left unchecked, the cultural

transmissionof the learned behaviors of habituationand food-conditioning can lead to ashiftin the behavior

of entire bear populations.

National parksprovide a set of circumstances conducive to conflictsbetweenhumans and grizzly bears. As

numbersof park visitors continueto increase in the habitat of the grizzly bear,the number of confrontations

between park visitors and bears can be expected to increase proportionately. How this pattern can be

reversed is not clear at the present time. Some biologists advocate an aversive conditioning program for

problem bearsto instill afear of humans and an avoidance of areas used by people such as roadsides and

heavily used trails. There is limited chance of successful aversive conditioning of bears that already have

received a food reward. Such bears will often continue to seek out human-use areas. Limited aversive

conditioningefforts on the ShoshoneNational Forest have resulted in two food-conditioned reproductive

aged females surviving to produce at least one or two more wild litters each. The best chance for aversive

conditioning success relates to those bears that havenot received a food reward but are justbeginning to

exploreand use areas close to human-use areas. Dataindicate that undersome conditions grizzly bears may

be aversive conditioned successfully to avoid people, specific sites, and specific stimuli within their home

ranges. Currently, available aversive-conditioning techniques are not cost or time effective, are difficult to

apply, and are limited in their range of application.

There are numerous examples of people andgrizzly bears coexisting compatibly through a relationshipthat

can be expressed astolerant but firm. These people, ranchers, outfitters, loggers, field personnel of wildlife

agencies,ForestService andBLMpersonnel, and many others, collectively spendtensof thousands of days

andnightsin grizzly bearhabitat with relatively fewproblems. Most bears outside of national parkshave

apparently retained their wariness of humans. Somebiologistsfeel that huntingof grizzly bears outside the

parkshasbeen afactorin preventing or reducinghabituation. Perhapsfewer bear/humanconflictsoutside

national parksis becausebears were legallyhuntedor exposed to illegalshootingorbecausethe ratio ofbears

to humans is lower outside the parks than it is inside the parks (Jonkel and Servheen 1977). After a

population hasbeendelisted,the State management authorities havethe option to use sport huntingas one

of the availablemanagement tools. This applicationmaybe especially valuable wherebear-humanconflicts

6 • Part One I Introduction
are high dueto high local bearnumbers. In anyevent, the behavioralmakeup ofthe grizzly bearpopulation

must be given serious consideration for successfulmanagement. People whoimpair the bears’ respect for

humans by providing unnatural food sources, whetherit be accidentally or intentionally, share an ethical

responsibilityfor future ads of damage or violence committed by those grizzly bears, and for the eventual

death of the bears when they must be removed by management agenciesfor safety reasons.

Habitat Conditions

Food

The broad historic distribution of grizzly bears suggests adaptive flexibility in food habits of different

populations. Although the digestive system of bearsis essentially that of acarnivore, bears are successful

omnivores, and in some areas may be almost entirely herbivorous. Morphological adaptations include

crushing molars and the greatest intestinal length relative to body length of any carnivore (Mealey 1975).

Although grizzly bearsinmany areas are almost entirely herbivorous, theyare lackinginmultiple stomachs

and a caecumand are therefore unable to digest cellulose. Bearsfeed on animal matter or vegetablematter

thatis highly digestible andhighin starch, sugars,protein,and storedfat(Stebler1972,Mealey1975,Hainer

et al. 1977).

Grizzly bears must avail themselves of foods rich in protein or carbohydrates in excess of maintenance

requirements in orderto survive denning and post-denning periods. Herbaceous plants are eaten as they

emerge, when crude protein levels are highest. These levels decline rapidly in many plant species as the

plants mature (Mealey 1975, Hamer et al. 1977,Herrero 1978).

Grizzlybears are opportunistic feeders and will prey or scavenge on almost any available food including

ground squirrels, ungulates, carrion,and garbage(Murie 1944,Hamer 1974). In areaswhere animal matter

is less available, roots, bulbs, tubers, fungi, and tree cambium may be important in meeting protein

requirements(Hamer 1974,Pearson1975, Singer 1978). High quality foodssuch as berries,nuts, andfish are

importantin some areas (Cole 1972, Martinka 1972, Hamer et al. 1977).

The search forfood has aprime influence on grizzly bear movements. Upon emergence fromthe denthey

seekthe lower elevations, drainagebottoms, avalanche chutes,andungulatewinterranges wheretheir food

requirements can be met. Throughoutlate spring and early summerthey follow plant phenology backto

higher elevations. In latesummer andfall, thereisa transition to fruitandnutsources, as well as herbaceous

materials. This is ageneralized pattern, however, andit should be kept in mind that bears are individuals

trying to survive and will go where theybest can meet their food requirements.

Cover

The relativeimportanceof coverto grizzly bears hasbeen documentedby Blanchard (1978) in a4-yearstudy

in theYellowstone ecosystem. Ninety percent of 2,261 aerial radio relocations of 46 instrumented grizzly

bears were in forest covertoo dense to observe the bear. Whethergrizzly bears use forest cover because of

an innate preference or to avoid humansis unknown (Blanchard1978). The importance of an interspersion

of open parks as feedingsites associated with coveris alsorecordedin Blanchard’s study: “Only 1 percent

of the relocations were in dense forest more than akilometer from an opening.”

Forest coverwasfound tobe very important to grizzly bearsforuse as beds. Most beds were foundlessthan

ayard or two froma tree (Servheen andLee 1979,Blanchard 1978). Blanchard furtherrecords only 16 of 233

beds observed (6.7 percent) werewithoutimmediate cover. Schallenberger andJonkel (1980)foundgrizzly

bears preferringforest in over 80 percent of their radio relocations.

Introduction I Pirt One • 7
Timber management programs may negatively affect grizzly bears by (1) removing thermal, resting, and

securitycover; (2) displacement from habitat during the logging period; and(3) increasesin human/grizzly

bearconfrontation potentialor disturbance factorsas aresult of roadbuilding andmanagement. Newroads

into formerly unroaded areasmay causebearsto abandon the area. Positive aspectsof timbermanagement

programs include an increase in bear foods (e.g., forbs, berries, and grasses) in certain regions through

vegetative manipulation (e.g., tree removal, riparian management,prescribed burning).

Denning

The unavailability of food, deep snow, and low, ambient air temperatures appear to make winter sleep

essentialto bears’ survival(Craighead and Craighead 1972a, 1972b). When rodents andbatshibernate,they

become periodically poikilothermic (Stringham, University of Tennessee, pers. comm. 1980). Hock(1960)

definedhibernation: “...a periodic phenomenon inwhichbody temperature fallsto alowlevel approxitnating ambient; heartrate, metabolicrate and physiologicfunctionsfallto acorrespondinglyminimumlevel...”

By contrast, bears are homeo-hypothermic hibernators whose body temperature drops no more than SOC

(approx. 10 degrees F) andis maintainedthere indefinitely. With normal fat reserves,bears are capable of

fasting for 6months with only slight reductions in body temperature. They do exhibit a “... marked

depression in heart rate and respiratory frequency, but a relatively slight drop in body temperature.”

(Craighead and Craighead 1972a). A number of authors have documented that day length and inclement

weather influence the onset of winter sleep or hibernation.

Grizzly bears excavate dens. The den diggingis probably instinctive. Itstarts as early as September or may

take place just prior to entry in late November. Dens are usually dug on steep slopes where wind and

topography cause an accumulation of deep snow and where the snow is unlikely to melt during warm

periods. Elevations of dens varygeographically, but generallytheyare foundat higher elevationswellaway

from development or human activity. Denning habitat descriptions and activity havebeen described for

grizzly bears in the Mission Mountains of Montana by Servheenand Klaver(1981). Findingan isolated area

that will be well covered with ablanket of snow to minimize the escape of body-warmed air andone that

will provide asecure environmentfor a5-month sleep appears to bea factorfavoring survival of the species

(Craigheadand Craighead 1972b, Pearson1975). Once denning areas are located, theymust be given prime

consideration by land management agencies. Craighead and Craighead (1972b), Servheen and Kiaver

(1981), and others have recorded prehibernation lethargy in bears that may startseveral weeks prior to

denning. Bears exhibit no overt defense of their dens and several have been reported to abandon them

because of human disturbance.

Prehibernation lethargy, the consequences of disturbance factorsto denning bears, andbear vulnerability

during the predenning and denning periods must be considerations in planning land-use activities in

identified denning habitat.

Past Distribution

Historically, the range of the brownbear includedalmost the entire coniferous and deciduous forest zones

of Europe andAsia (Curry-Lindahi 1972, Servheen1990). Brownbearsstill occur nearboth the northern and

southern extremes of their original distribution in Eurasia, although their numbers are greatly reduced.

They havebeen extirpated throughout vastareas. Though still numerous in the formerUSSR, the brown

bearhasdisappearedfrommuch of itsrangewest of the formerUSSR dueto destruction of habitatandheavy

huntingpressure. The North African subspecieswas exterminated acenturyago. Local populations persist

in Europe, and some are surprisinglyabundant (Rumania, Yugoslavia). However, othersare very smalland

their future is uncertain (Cowan 1972, Curry-Lindahl 1972, Servheen 1990).

B Part OneI Introduction
In NorthAmerica,the grizzly’s historic range extended fromthemid-plains westward to theCalifornia coast

(Rausch 1963, Herrero 1972) and south into Texas and Mexico (Storer and Tevis 1955). The developmentof

unfavorable environmental conditionsin thewake of westward expansion anddevelopmentcaused arapid

distributional recession (Guilday 1968). Populations were present throughout most of Western North

America duringthe 18th century (Storer and Tevis 1955), but the rapidity of local extinctions suggests that

many of these also were of marginal status (Martinka 1974).

Between 1800 and 1975, grizzly populations in the lower 48 States receded from estimatesof over 50,000 to

less than1,000grizzly bears. At the time of theLewisandClark expedition, grizzlybearsinhabited theGreat

Plains and flourished along rivers and streams (Wright 1909). As fur trapping, mining, ranching, and

farmingpushed westward, the grizzlywas extirpated frommuch of the Great Plains. Asthe mountainous

areas were settled, logging and recreational development contributed to the increase in human-induced

mortality of grizzly bears. In most cases,bearsthatthreatened or appearedto threatenman’searlytenuous

existence were eliminated. Livestock depredation control, habitat deterioration, commercial trapping,

unregulated hunting, and protection of humanlife were leading causes of decline (Martinka 1976, Brown

1985). Conflicts betweenbears andlivestock were common during the settling of theWest. The attitude of

the early American stockinan was expressed by Bailey (1931): “The destruction of these grizzlies is

absolutely necessary before the stock business.., could be maintained on a profitable basis.”

Grizzlybears were eliminated fromTexas about 1890, andby 1922 thelast of theCaliforniagrizzly bears were

gone (Storer andTevis 1955)(fig. 1). Theywere lastreportedinUtahin 1923,Oregon 1931,NewMexico 1933,

and Arizona 1935. Professional hunters/trappers hired by Federal and State agencies and stockinen’s

groups, and accelerated humansettlement were responsible for a large part of the exterminations.

Figure 1.

Historical grizzly bear distribution in

the conterminous 48 States, by C.H.

Merriam in 1922 (from Outdoor Life,

Dec. 1922; reprinted with permission

from the Popular Science Publishing

Company), in Earle F. Layser 1978.

IntroductIon I Part One • 9
Severalranchersraised in the foothills areas along the east and southbordersof theNCDEhave commented

that populations appearto be greaterin recent years thantheywere duringthe 1920’sand 1930’s. Howard

Copenhaver, arancherand outfitterliving on the southern boundary oftheNCDEforover60 years, believes

grizzly bear populations were attheirlowest ebb during the earlypartof the century and extending into the

1920’s and 1930’s. He relatedthatsheepmen were running theirbandsofsheep farinto themountains, and

out ofnecessityhired hunters and trappersin additionto herdersto protect them. “Seeinga trackofa grizzly

orblackbear during the 1920’s wassomething to write home about,” statesCopenhaver. He also statedthat

itishis opinion that grizzly bearsin areashe is familiarwith, have increased markedly over the last 30 years.

Throughout history, grizzly bears in marginal habitat have been vulnerable to over-kill because of their

opportunistic feeding habits and consequent attraction to carrion, weakened domestic animals, garbage,

and other food sources associated with people (Hamer 1974). However, many bear hunters and field

research personnelwould disagree on their susceptibilityin wildhabitat, as theyhavefound them difficult

to observe even fleetingly.

Fortunately, the scene of widespread eradication of grizzlies has disappeared today. A number of State

management measures andpublic awareness have arrestedor slowed the decline of grizzly populations in

several areas. For instance, the MDFWP had implemented a number of management policies affording

protection for grizzly bears in Montana prior to the 1975 Federal listing of grizzly bears as a threatened

species (Dood et al. 1986). These protective measures included, but were not limited to, the abolition of

baiting and use of hounds to hunt bears in 1921, the listing ofbears as a game species in 1923, prohibiting

the killing of cubsor females with cubsin 1947, a number of grizzly bear surveys, and regulated hunting

seasons throughout the period from the 1920’s to present. Additionally, several State wildlife agencies

(Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming), Federal wildlife agencies, conservation groups, and landowners have

developedcooperative education programs, privateland management programs, andnuisancebear control

efforts. Such programsfoster local tolerance andpositive attitudes criticalto grizzly recoveryin areaswhere

humans and bears must coexist.

Since 1975, the grizzly was afforded threatened status under the Act. Much effort has been expended by

various Federal and State land and wildlife agencies, tribal governments, and segments of the public to

conserve the species. Currently, the two leading challenges in grizzly bearconservation are the reduction

of human-caused mortality and the conservation of remaining habitat. In the two largest ecosystems, the

YGBE and the NCDE, annual records of mortality, females with cubs,and distributiondepictthe success of

efforts to protect grizzliesand their habitat. In the YGBE andNCDE, human-causedmortality has dropped

to sustainable or nearly sustainable levels. This has been achieved through rigorous sanitation projects

within and surrounding recovery zones, education andinformation programs, and increased lawenforcement. In 1985, Federal and State agencies cooperated in the development of the Interagency Grizzly Bear

Management Guidelines. The Guidelines detail protocol for nuisance bear management and also detail

grizzly bear habitat management policies. Since the inceptionof the Guidelines, all agencies haveworked

to implement the policies stated in the Guidelines within and surrounding grizzly bear recovery zones.

Current Distribution/Status

In the conterminous48 States, only five areas (fig. 2) in mountainousregions, national parksand wilderness

areas of Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (Hoak et al. 1981, Servheen 1990) currently contain

either self-perpetuating or remnant populations. Grizzlybears are known to haveexisted in the recentpast

in two additional areas, the BitterrootMountains in Idaho and the San Juan Mountainsin Colorado. These

seven areas will be referred to as grizzly bear ecosystems.

10 • Part One I Introduction
Figure 2. Present grizzly bear ecosystems in the conterminous 48 States, 1990 (the San Juan Mountains area of Colorado is not shown).

Although therehavebeenreports of grizzly bearsin the Sierra delNido inMexico, no hard evidence of their

presence exists (Leopold 1967, Koford 1969). A grizzly bear was shot in the San Juan National Forest in

Coloradoin 1979. This adult femalegrizzlywas killed by an archery hunter on the headwaters of the Navajo

River (Hess, ColoradoDivision of Wildlife, pers. comm. 1980,Brown 1985). Field research during 1979-80,

whichentailedtrapping in aportion of the SanJuan ecosystemwhere the bearwas shot, failed to determine

the continued existence of grizzly bears in thisarea. This areais being considerednowfor furtherevaluation

as an additional recovery area.

Grizzly bears presently occupy over 23,300 km2 (9,500 mi2) of mountainous terrain in and surrounding

Yellowstone National Park. The YGBE (fig. 5, p. 39) includes Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton

NationalPark,JohnD. Rockefeller Mem4--orial Parkway, significant contiguous portions of the Shoshone,

Bridger-Teton, Targhee, Gallatin, Beaverhead, and CusterNational Forests, Bureau of LandManagement

lands,andover 222 km2 (86 mi2) of State and private lands inMontana,Wyoming,andIdaho. The minimum

population estimate in this area is approximately 236 bears.

The NCDE (fig. 7, p. 59) contains 24,800 km2 (9,600 mi2) of occupiedgrizzly bearhabitat. ItincludesGlacier

National Park, parts of the Flathead and Blackfeet Indian Reservations, parts of five national forests

(Flathead, Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lob), Bureau of Land Management lands, and a

significant amount of State and private lands. Four wilderness areas (Bob Marshall, Mission Mountains,

GreatBear, and Scapegoat) and one wilderness study area (Deep Creek North) are included. Population

Introduction I Part One • 11
estimatesforthis ecosystemvary from549-813 bears (Dood etal. 1986). The area is contiguous to Canadian

grizzly bear populations and interchange of bears has been documented. The most recent minimum

population estimate for the NCDEis over 300 bears.

One importantaspect of this ecosystemisthatit embraces anarrow strip of theGreat Plainsalong the eastern

slopes of theRocky Mountainfrontwheregrizzlybearsstill exist. Thesebears maybe descendants of grizzly

bears that once occupied the Plains, noted by Lewis and Clark in the early 1800’s and painted by Charles

Russell 100 yearslater.

The Cabinet/Yaak Ecosystem (CYE) (fig. 10, p. 81) in northwestern Montana and northeastern Idaho has

over 5,100 km2 (2,600 mi2) of forested andmountainous habitatoccupiedby grizzly bears (fig. 10, p. 81). The

population in the Cabinet Mountains portionof this area isthought to be lessthan 15 bears atpresent based

on 5 years of intensive researchinCanadaand theU.S. Thereis asmallyet unknownnumber of grizzly bears

in the Yaak portion of the ecosystem. There are grizzly bearsto the north of the U.S./Canada border, and

interchanges of radio-collared bears across the border have been documented. Functional movement

corridorsforgrizzlybears, withadequate cover, betweentheCabinet Mountains population andpopulation

centersin the Yaak are undetermined currently, andno movement hasbeen documented. However, black

bears are known to havemovedbetweenthe areas. Untilfurther data are available,it isreasonable to assume

that the Cabinets and the Yaak are connected by a viablemovement corridor. Grizzlies in the area occur at

such low densities that detection of specific movements is difficult.

The SE (fig. 11, p. 99) of northwestern Idaho, northeasternWashington,and southeastern BritishColumbia

includes2,800 km2 (1,081 mi2) in the U.S. portion and 2,270km2 (876 mi2) in theBritishColumbia portionof

the recovery zone. The grizzlybearpopulation in the Selkirks is contiguous withCanadianpopulations. The

Selkirk grizzly bear recovery zone isthe only one of four recovery zones definedto date that includes part

of Canadabecause the habitatin the U.S. portionis not of sufficientsize to support a minimumpopulation.

The Selkirk Mountains run north-southacross the border, the habitatis contiguous across the border, and

radio-collared bears are knowntomove backand forth acrossthe border. Therefore, the grizzlies north and

south of the border are considered onepopulation. Research and management is ongoing on both sides of

the border in the Selkirk grizzly bear recovery zone. The population estimate for the entire ecosystem is

unknown,but betweenthe years 1985-1990, 26-36bears were knownto occurin astudyarea that composed

approximately one-third of the ecosystem. As of October 1991, seven grizzly bears were wearing active

radio-collarsin thisarea. The criteria forpopulation recovery will be appliedandquantified within the entire

recovery zoneon both sides of the border. The management authoritiesinBritishColumbia concur with this

approach.

The Bitterroot Ecosystem(BE) (fig. 12, p. 117) iscentered in the Selway-BitterrootWildernessArea. Historic

grizzly bear range includesNational Forest lands surrounding this wilderness and the River of No Return

Wilderness Area on both sides of the Salmon River. A 5-year habitat and population evaluation has been

completed in this area (Davis andButterfield 1991). Itis unclear at this point as towhether grizzly bears in

thisarea are permanent residents. However, the study confirmsthattheBitterrootevaluationarea contains

sufficient amounts of quality habitat to warrant grizzly bear recovery (Servheen et al. 1991). Upon

recommendation by the NW Ecosystems Management Subcommittee, the IGBC approved the Bitterroot

evaluation area for grizzly bearrecovery efforts. Specific boundaries of theBitterrootgrizzly bear recovery

zone are to be determined by the end of 1993 by an interagency workinggroup.

The North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) (fig. 13, p. 119) is also contiguousto an area of lowgrizzly density in

Canada. A 5-year habitat and population evaluation has been completed. Verified grizzly tracks were

12 • Part One I Introduction
documented in 1989 and 1990 (Almack et al. 1991). Additionally, habitat research confirms thatthe North

Cascades evaluationarea offers sufficient amounts of quality habitatto warrantgrizzly bearrecovery in the

area (Servheen et al. 1991). Upon recommendation by the NW Ecosystems Management Subcommittee,

IGBC approved the North Cascades evaluation area for grizzly bearrecovery efforts. Specific boundaries

of the NorthCascadesgrizzly bearrecovery zone are to be determined by the end of 1993 by an interagency

workinggroup.

Separateworking groupscomposed of State and Federalagency biologistshavebeen appointed forboth the

North Cascades and the Bitterroots. The working groups will develop a public involvement process,

delineate recovery zone boundaries, and develop and implement recovery tasks and objectives for their

respective recoveryzones. Upon completion, the tasks andobjectivesfortheNorth CascadesandBitterroots

will be added as separate chapters to this revised Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Development of these two

chapters is underway.

Other areas throughout the historic range of the grizzly bear are being considered to determine their

suitability for grizzly bear recovery. Areas to be considered must have the potentialto provide adequate

amounts of quality habitat;, space, and isolation necessary to sustain aviable population of grizzly bears.

Legal Status

Protection afforded grizzlybears under the Act is extensive. The possession,transportation, taking, sale,and

receiptof grizzlybears or partsthereof are coveredunder regulationsfoundat50 CFR17.40. The term “take”

includes, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any

such conduct.

Regulationsfound at50 CFR17.40 authorize certain exceptionsto the Act. Theregulations allow the taking

of a grizzly bear in defense of human life, removal of nuisance bears by authorized Federal or State

employees, or Federal or State research activities conducted under the authority of permits issued by the

Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Any grizzly bear takenunder the above situations must be

reported to the U.S. Fishand Wildlife ServiceDivision of LawEnforcementand appropriate State or Tribal

officials, within 5 days.

Violation of the provisions of the Act can result in a fine of $50,000 and 1 year in prison for a criminal

conviction and up to $10,000 in civil penalties. Criminal conviction also carries provisions for (I)

modification,suspension or revocation of any lease, license, permit, or other agreement authorizing the use

of Federalland, including the grazing of domestic livestock; (2) revocation of Federal hunting and fishing

permits; and (3) forfeiture of all guns, traps, other equipment, vehicles, aircraft, and other means of

transportation used in taking, possessing, selling, purchasing, offering for sale or purchase, transporting,

delivery, receiving, carrying, shipping—in violation of the Act. Thisregulation currently prohibits the sale

of any unlawfully taken grizzly bear, hide, claws, or parts thereof, and supersedes wildlife treaty rights

relative to hunting, possession, or selling of grizzly bears except in accordance with Federal or State

regulations. Rewards equalto one-half of the criminalor civil penalty or fine paidmay be authorized to any

person furnishing information that leads to a finding of civil violations or criminal convictions relating to

any provision of the Act.

In addition to being listed as athreatened species under the Act, the grizzly bearreceives protection against

unregulated killing as a game speciesin Montana andWyoming. In Colorado, Idaho, and Washington, the

grizzly is included on State threatened or endangered species lists.

Introduction I Part One • 13

Needs for Recovery

Goal of the Recovery Plan

The goal of the revised recovery planis to identify actions necessary for the conservation and recovery of

the grizzly bear. It is believed that these actions ultimately will result in the removal of the species from

“threatened” status in the conterminous48 States. The species was listedas “threatened” in 1975 pursuant

to the Act of 1973, as amended (87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). A threatened species is definedin the Act

as one that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and

threatened species dependmaybe conserved. Conserve, conserving, and conservation are definedwithin

the Act as to use and the use of all methods andprocedures that are necessaryto bring any endangeredor

threatened species to a point at which the measures pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary. “Such

methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources

managementsuch as research, census, lawenforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation,

live trapping, andtransplantation, andin the extraordinary casewherepopulation pressures within agiven

ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking” (87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).

This plandefines asequence of actionsthat will provide forthe conservation andrecovery of the grizzlybear

in selected areas of the conterminous 48 States. Specific objectives of this plan are:

(1) Identify grizzly bearpopulation goals that represent species recovery in measurable and quantifiable

terms for the six to seven (pending outcome of decisionsregarding the San Juans) ecosystems where

the grizzly bear has suitable habitat.

(2) Provide a population monitoring approach that will allowdetermination of recovered levels.

(3) Identify population and habitatlimitingfactorsthat account forcurrent populations existing atlevels

requiring threatened status under the Act.

(4) Identify management measures needed to remove population and habitat limiting factors so that

populations will increase and sustain themselves at levels identified as the recovery goals.

(5) Establish recovered populations in each of the ecosystems where habitatis available to sustain agrizzly

bear population.

The plan addresses seven areas in the conterminous 48 States where grizzly bears are known or thoughtto

have been present in 1975. These seven grizzly bear ecosystems either presently have or recently had the

potential to provide adequate space and habitat tomaintain the grizzly bear as aviable and self-sustaining

species. Additional areas will be considered for evaluation as grizzly bear recovery areas in the future.

One objective of the recovery plan (objective 5, above) is to recover grizzly bear populations in all of the

ecosystemsthat are known to have suitable space and habitat. Grizzlybear populations occurred in five of

the seven ecosystems as of 1990. The five areas knownto contain grizzlybears are the YGBE,the NCDE,the

SE, the CYE, and the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) (Almack et al. 1991). A 5-year study revealed no

evidence of resident grizzly bears in the BE despite occasional reports of sightings and tracks (Davis and

Butterfield 1991). However, results reveal that adequate suitable habitat exists to sustain a recovered

Needs for Recovery I Part Two • 15
population (Servheen et al. 1991). Grizzly bearrecovery zones have beenestablishedin the YGBE, NCDE,

SE, and CYE. Recovery zones are currently being delineated forthe NCE andBE. There is no firm evidence

suggesting the recent presence of grizzliesin the San Juans. The lack of informationin the San Juans is due

in largepart to limited reconnaissance andresearch efforts. Decisions concerningthe status of the SanJuans

as an evaluation area are pending.

Thisrecovery planis not intendedto provide precise details on all aspects of grizzly bearmanagement. The

recovery planoutlinesstepsthat willfacilitate the recovery of the speciesin the lower 48 States. The recovery

planis not a“decision document” as definedby theNationalEnvironmental Policy Act(NEPA). Itdoes not

allocate resources on public lands. The implementation of the recovery plan isthe responsibilityof Federal

and State management agencies in areas where the species occurs. Implementation is done through

incorporation of appropriateportions of the recovery planinto agency decisiondocumentssuch as National

Forest plans, NationalParkmanagement plans,State game management plans and various State processes.

Such documents are then subject to the NEPA process, State public review processes, and selection of

alternatives.

Funds expended to achieve the goals and objectives of this recovery plan will be contingent upon

appropriations, priorities, and budgetary constraints; a most important ingredient will be the degree of

commitment exhibited by individualsin supervisory and management capacities toward conserving the

grizzly bear. Inadequate funding or lack of full cooperation by individuals, groups, or agencies will only

waste dollars andeventuallyincrease the costof recovery orincrease the costs fortasksthatwill be necessary

to prevent extinction of smallpopulations. A concerted, unified recovery effort, coordinatingthe resources

of Federal andState agenciesandasupportive public, isthemost effective approachto ensure thatthe grizzly

bear will be present in all remaining ecosystems in the future.

Requirementsfor Recovery

Two separate requirements must be met before the population within an ecosystem can be delisted. These

are: (1) attainment of the population demographic parameters for that ecosystem within the monitoring

period specified; and (2) as a requirement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the development and

completion of an interagency conservation strategythat will ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms

will continueto be present after delisting. Adequate regulatory mechanisms are those regulations, policies,

and guidelines that will ensure that the grizzly bear population and the habitat of the species within the

recovery zone will be conserved after delisting.

The interagency conservation strategy is necessaryto ensure the existence of adequate regulatory mechanisms. Such astrategywill listlegal authorities, anddetail policy, management programs, andthe continued

commitment of management agencies to maintain a high standard of management after delisting of the

grizzlywithin that ecosystem. The conservation strategydocument will be preparedby an interagency team

led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The conservation strategywill (1) describe and summarize the

habitat and population management that will exist and apply to the grizzly and grizzly habitat after the

status of the grizzly is changedwithin that ecosystem and the species is no longer listedunder the Act;and

(2) demonstrate the adequacy, continuity, and continued agency application of population and habitat

management regulatory mechanisms in order to ensure that the grizzly will not need to be relisted. All

agencieswill agree to implement the standards in the conservation strategyby signing the document. The

ecosystem-specificstandards andcriteria in the conservation strategywill replacethe recovery plan once the

species is delisted in an ecosystem. Implementation of the conservation strategy after delisting is the

responsibility of the involved agencies and will be necessary to maintain the standard of management

required to conserve and maintain a viable population.

16 • Part Two I Needs for Recovery
Grizzly bear populations may be listed, recovered, and delisted separately. For change in status of any

grizzly population, the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service wouldpublish a proposed rulemaking in the Federal

Register. This proposed rulemaking would detail the status of the population relating to the five factorsin

sec.4.(a)(1) of the Act, and the rationale for changing the status of the population. These factorsare: (1) the

present andor threateneddestruction,modification,or curtailment of its habitator range; (2)overutilization

forcommercial,recreational,scientific, or educationalpurposes; (3) diseaseor predation; (4)the inadequacy

of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. After publication of thisproposed rule, therewouldbe apublic commentperiod and, becausethe

grizzly bear is a species of much public interest, therealso wouldbe public hearings on the proposed rule.

After the public commentperiod and the public hearings, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Servicewould publish

afinal rule providing a decision on whether the status of the population is being changed.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requires that a conservation strategy specific to an ecosystem be

completedpriorto anyprocessto delistthe grizzly population within that ecosystemin orderto ensure that

adequate regulatory mechanisms will continue to conserve the grizzly bearand its habitat. This conservation strategy will be referenced in the Federal Register proposing achange of status for that population.

Perspective on Areas of Recovery

Grizzlybear distribution has beenreduced to lessthan 2 percent of historicalrange in the lower 48 States

(fig. 2). The remaining populations are separated into six orseven fragmentsof once contiguous range. The

1982 recovery plan referenced these areas as “occupied habitat,” and also made reference to the existence

of grizzly bearsin each of these areas within the past 10 years as a criterion for their inclusion as inhabited

areas. The term “occupied habitat” has proved to be unworkable becauseof lack of definition and the fact

that all areaswheregrizzly bearrecords occurin the recentpast canbe considered “occupied” in some sense.

In order to clarify this situation, this revised recovery plan will use the term “recovery zone” to refer to

designated regions within each of the grizzly bear ecosystems. The term “occupied habitat” will no longer

be used.

Recovery zones havebeen established to identify the areas needed forrecovery of the specieswithin the 48

conterminous States. A recovery zone is defined as the area in each grizzly bear ecosystem within which

the population and habitat criteria for achievement of recovery will be measured. All areas within the

recoveryzonewillbemanaged as eitherManagement Situation1,11, or IIIunder theInteragencyGrizzlyBear

Guidelines (U.S. Forest Service 1986) (Appendix A) hereafter referred to as the Guidelines. Each recovery

zonewill include an area largeenough and of sufficienthabitat quality to support arecovered grizzly bear

population. Recovery zones are divided into areas designated as Bear Management Units (BMU’s). The

BMU’s are areas that are used forhabitat evaluationand population monitoring. Detailed large-scalemaps

of each recovery zone andrespectiveBMU’s are available in the local officesof State and Federalwildlife and

land management agencies in that ecosystem.

Boundaries of recovery zones as described in this recovery plan are subject to change as new biological

information becomes available. The following criteria provides the basis for action by the U.S. Fish and

WildlifeService, actingin cooperationwith involved State andFederalagenciesthrough IGBC management

subcommittees and the IGBC, to change the boundaries of recovery zones:

Needs for Recovery I Part Two • 17
1. Anyadditions tothe existingrecovery zonesshould bebased onbiological data indicating thatthe area

in question contains naturalresources and/ or concentrated naturalfoods of moderate or higher value

to grizzly bears on a seasonal basis, wherethe occurrence of femalegrizzly bears who live primarily

withinthe zone hasbeen verified. These resourcesmust attract grizzly bears wholivemost of the year

within the zone to the area outside the zone.

2. The area andnumber of bearsin question must be significant enough to indicatethat the recovery zone

line needs modification to ensure the recovery and survival of the population in that ecosystem. The

significance of the area and/ or number of bears affected should be based upon the best biological

judgment available.

3. All actions involving the changes of recovery zone boundaries, including elimination of areasfrom a

zone, will be based on the bestbiological data. The U.S. Fishand Wildlife Serviceis committed to use

the best available biological data to facilitate recovery of the species and will continue to consider

changes as data become available.

It is recognized that grizzly bears occasionally will move and even reside permanently in areas outside

recovery zones. Bears can and are expected to exist outside recovery zone lines in many areas. However,

only the area within the recovery zone will bemanaged primarily forgrizzly habitat. Bearsresidingwithin

the recovery zone are crucialto recovery goals and hence to delisting. The mere presence of bears outside

arecovery zone does not warrant changes in the boundaryline. Resources must exist outside the line that

are important to those bears living primarily within the zone. An example of a legitimate change in a

recovery zonewouldbe the addition of atract of important seasonal habitatoutside the zone that occursin

limited supply within the recovery zone in that area.

Bears both inside and outside the recovery zone are listed as threatened under the Act and are protected

under provisions of the Act against illegal killing. Management efforts such as pursuit, capture, and

relocationwill not be directed against grizzly bears outside the recovery zone ifsuch bears do not comeinto

conflict with people or domestic livestock or do not represent a demonstrable threat to humans. It is

recognized thatsuch areas are notprimarily managed forgrizzly bearuse. Bears outside the zone that come

into conflict with humans will be captured and relocated into the recovery zone according to the nuisance

bearcriteria in theGuidelines (U.S. ForestService 1986). Capture andremoval of nuisancebears outside the

recovery zone by authorized agency action is necessarily more lenient than within the recovery zone.

Perspective on Monitoring Methods

Significant information is now available on grizzly bear food habits, general habitat use, movements,

mortality, and the effects of human activities. Less success has been achieved in developing techniques to

determine densities or total numbers of bears in large ecosystems. The various approaches available to

monitor grizzly bear populations are reviewed in detail by Harris (1986) and by Dood et al. (1986). The

achievement of recovery requires adequate methods of population monitoring. Significant efforts have gone

into the consideration of monitoring methods that are indicative of population status. The monitoring

methods described in this plan attempt to demonstratethe presence of aminimum population ratherthan

estimate total or actual bear numbers.

As was statedin the 1982 recovery plan,it ismost difficult to determinethe total population ofany secretive,

wide-ranging species that occupies rugged, mountainousterrain. Because of this difficulty, current grizzly

bearrecovery targets do not include specific grizzly bearnumbers. Instead,the targetsin thisrecoveryplan

are measurable parameters that can be used to indicate population status. Indicators of population status

18 • Part Two I Needs for Recovery
can be used to make assumptions about population size. Assumptions have been minimized as much as

possible to avoid contentions about the basis of such assumptions. Additionally, monitoring methods

detailed in the MDFWP Grizzly Bear EIS (Dood et al. 1986) provide parallel approaches that supply the

public with added confidence in the health of the population.

It is recognized that optimal management for the survival of remaining large, wide-ranging carnivores

should include maximizing numbers of animals andrange. For all ecosystems,the approach for developing

a population goalhas beento maximize the number of bears that could be expected to survive within the

available space. This approach seekstominimize risk to the survival of each population through achieving

the maximum number of bears that can be supported by the availablehabitat while remaining sensitive to

the social concerns of people livingin these areas. The greater the number ofbears andthe greaterthe extent

of their range, the lower the risk to the survival of these populations. Given the current geographic

distributionof grizzly bears in the U.S. and the existing humanactivities within thisrange, this plan seeks

to maximize grizzly bearnumbers and distribution in remaining habitat in coordination with andconsideration of the existing human factors.

The population monitoring methods and recovery targets in thisrevised recovery plan are significantly

different than those in the 1982 recovery plan. The methods outlined in thisrevisedrecovery plan do not

rely on the grizzlybear populationdynamics data fortheYellowstone ecosystem (from 1959-67, as described

by Craighead et al. 1974)thatwere the basis for the recovery targets in the 1982 plan. Since 1982, significant

research efforts on the threatened grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 States, along with research in

Canada and Alaska, have resulted in revised recovery targets.

In thisrecovery plan, the basis for recovery in each population is a combination of indicators that can be

monitored to demonstrate the status of the population. Three basic parameters were chosen as the key

indicators of population status. The threekeyindicators are: (1) sufficient reproduction to offsetthe existing

levels of human-caused mortality; (2) adequate distribution of breeding animals throughout the area; and

(3) a limit on total human-caused mortality, which is related to the previous two parameters. Additional

indicators can and will be monitored as they are developed and become available, but currently the

determination of population status will be based on the combination of the three key indicators. Any

additions to the types of parameters monitored will be completed as an interagency effort based on new

information and techniques as available.

The development of a population monitoring system requires balance between precision and cost. High

precision requiresintrusivemonitoring of the population atrelatively high cost. Low precision usuallyalso

islow in costbut produces data withwide,sometimes questionable, confidence. The optimummonitoring

system should be repeatable and nonintrusive (it should not require continuous capture and handling of

animals). The optimum system should not require exorbitant expense or highly trained and specialized

personnel whose time is solely devoted to grizzly bear monitoring.

Appropriate andmonitorable population parameters that indicateminimumpopulation status can serve as

an alternative to point estimates of population size. With these objectives, limitations, andassumptions in

mind, asystemhasbeendeveloped to monitorthreekeyparameters: (1)the number of unduplicated females

with cubs seen annually, (2) the distribution of females with young or family groups throughout the

ecosystem, (3) the annual number of known human-caused mortalities.

Other factors also can be monitored to increase confidence in the information, but these three parameters

will be the key criteria used to judge the status of the population.

Needs for Recovery I Part Two • 19
The MDFWP employs a system to monitor a number of population parameters as detailed in the State

Grizzly Bear EIS (Dood et al. 1986) and Grizzly BearManagement Program. This system monitors other

factorsthanthe parameters outlined in thisrecovery plan. Thistypeof State management planforthe grizzly

bearis an example of the typeof detail that specific management programs can add to the requirements in

this recovery plan.

Rationale

Females With cubs

In order to demonstrate adequate reproduction and to estimate an average minimum population size, a

target number of unduplicated females with cubs of the year must be attained as arunning 6-year average.

Six-year averages account for two breeding cycles, based on an average 3-year breeding interval. The

number of unduplicatedfemales with cubswill be used to indicatewhetherthe population islargeenough

to sustain existinglevels of human-caused grizzly bearmortality. An interagency team of biologistsshould

carefully screen reports of females with cubs according to methods described by Knight and Blanchard

(1993) (Appendix F), to judge the credibility of the sightings and eliminate duplicate reports.

The purpose of thisnumberisto demonstratethat a knownminimum number of adult females are alive to

reproduce and offset existing mortality in the ecosystem. The 6-year average number of unduplicated

females with cubs is not adequate to characterize population trend or precise population size (Knight and

Blanchard 1993). Any attempt to use this parameterto indicate trends or precise population size wouldbe

an invalid use of these data. However, thisnumber can be used to derive aminimum population estimate.

Annual efforts in reporting unduplicated females with cubs for this purpose should be as consistent as

possible,but it isrecognized that such effort is difficult to standardize. However, the purpose of thistarget

isto ensure aminimumnumber of adult femalesratherthanestimate trajectoriesof changein the population.

Therefore, annual variation in amount of effort expended to locate females with cubs becomes less

important. Ifintensive effort demonstrateslargenumbersof adult females present, thenthisfurtherensures

that the population is above the minimum level necessary to sustain existing man-caused mortality. If

insufficient effort is expended to locate adult females, recovery criteria that otherwise mayhavebeen met

will not be achieved.

Occupancy

The target of occupancy by females with young is designed to demonstrate adequate distribution of the

reproductive cohort within the recovery zone. Assuming that successful reproduction is an indicator of

habitatsufficiency, distribution of reproducing females across the recovery zone also provides evidence of

adequate habitatmanagement. Adequate distributionof family groupsindicatesfuture occupancy of these

areas becausegrizzly bear offspring, especially female offspring, tend to occupyhabitat within or nearthe

home range of their mother after weaning.

Mortality

The sustainablemortality levelis directly relatedto the number of unduplicated females withcubs,the prime

indicator of population level. Harris (1985) suggests that grizzly bear populations can sustain 6 percent

human-causedmortality withoutpopulation decline. However, to facilitate recovery andto account for the

unknown, unreported, human-caused mortality that occurs, the known human-caused mortality level

should be no more than4 percent of theminimumpopulation estimate, andno more than 30 percent of this

known human-causedmortality can be females. The mostrecent 3-yearsum of unduplicated females with

cubs foreach ecosystemcan be used to calculate the minimumpopulation of bears for that ecosystem. This

method applies the proportion of adult females in a population to theminimum number of adult females

20 • Part Two I Needs for Recovery
known to be alive (Knight et al. 1988, Appendix C). This mortality management method allows annual

recalculationof the mortalitylimits for each ecosystem and annual adjustment ofthe mortalitylimits based

on population monitoring.

Recovery targets for the threekey parameters of aminimum number of femaleswith cubs, the distribution

of family groups, and the limit for annual known human-induced mortality have been identified for the

YGBE, NCDE, CYE, and SE recovery zones. These targets were developed by the IGBC management

subcommittees involving all State and Federal agenciesinvolvedin grizzly bearmanagement in each area.

Recovery actions are definedin thisrecovery plan for each of these populations.

Recovery zones and targets for the North Cascades and Bitterroot grizzly bear recovery zones will be

determined by interagency biological workinggroups andapprovedby IGBC managementsubcommittees

during the recovery plan process for those areas. No decisions havebeen made on the management for

grizzly bears in the San Juan area of Colorado.

Effective Habitat

Bearresearchers agreethat themost crucialelementin grizzly recovery issecuring adequate effectivehabitat

for bear populations. Today grizzlies remain only in large tracts of relatively undisturbed land. A clear

relationship exists betweenhabitat loss and fragmentation, in addition to persecutionby humans and the

loss of grizzly populations. Effective habitat isdefined asthatwhichprovidesall the components necessary

for the survival of the species. Food, cover, denning habitat, solitude, and space are all important

constituents of effective habitat (Craighead et al. 1982).

Diversitycharacterizes prime grizzly habitat, and is essential to provide awide range of vegetation types

required to produce avariedfood supply. Effective grizzly habitat contains an abundance of many kinds

of naturalfoods, vegetalandanimal,so thatstochastic changesinthe abundance ofsome fooditems areoffset

by the presence andavailability of otheritems. Diversityalso providesrequiredresting,denning, andsocial

areas and space.

Movements of grizzly bears may exceed 60 airline milesand their home ranges can encompass up to 1,000-

1,500 mi2 (2,590-3,885 kin2),thus space is essentialto bears. Because grizzlies can conflictwith humans and

their landuses, bear habitat must provide some areasisolated from development or fromareas otherwise

highly impacted by humans. Sanitation isimportant even in remote areas, as grizzly bears are omnivorous

andare attractedto “artificial” human-relatedfood sources. Sanitarydisposal of garbage andother edibles

is required to avoid food conditioningand eventual habituation of bears to human presence around such

attractants.

Grizzly populations require some level of safety from human depredation and competitive use of habitat

that includesroading, logging, mining, human settlement, grazing, and recreation. Habitat management

policies such as fire suppression also cah be viewed as competitive use because it may have long-term

adverse effects on grizzly habitat. Grizzlies knowno competitorsthat restricttheir use of habitatexceptman,

andit appearsthattheyhave not evolvedbehavioral adaptations to contendwiththe scope of current human

influences.

Competitive use of habitat encompasses all factors that lead eventually to increased negative impact of

human activity on grizzly populations. Roads probably pose the most imminent threat to grizzly habitat

today (Appendix B). The management of roadsis one of the most powerful tools available to balance the

Needs for Recovery I Part Two • 21
needs of people with the needs of bears. It is strongly recommended that road management be given the

highest priority within all recovery zones.

The impacts of logging, mining, livestock grazing, and many forms of recreation in grizzly habitat can be

mitigated through well-desiguedmanagement programs. Butthe presence of open roadsin grizzly habitat

often leads to increased bear/human contact and conflict, and can ultimately end in grizzly mortality.

Accidental shooting, poaching, and habituation through direct human contact and/or food reward all

increase with the use of even secondary, unpaved roads by humans. Additionally, the disturbance

generatedby heavy trafficon paved roadsand/ or highwaysin grizzly habitatmay create barriersto grizzly

movements.

Habitat Monitoring

Habitat monitoring is criticalto the survival of grizzly bears. Monitoring trendsin effective habitatrequire

continual updating of habitat information. Both natural and humaninfluences that affect habitat effectiveness must be monitored. Examples of human activities that could be monitored to assess habitat

effectiveness and the changes in habitat dueto humanactivities include miles of open road and total road

miles per BMU or forest compartment; cover/no-cover ratios; backcountry use days; and vehicle use on

open roads.

In the past, humanactivitiesthatimpacted grizzly habitat, including forestry,recreation, and grazing,were

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Today efforts are being made to assessimpacts in a regional context.

Cumulative Effects Analysis (CEA) implemented through the Cumulative Effects Model (CEM) is an

“assessment of how the combination of natural processes and events, and man’sactivities cause resources

and environmental conditions in an area to change over time” (Christensen 1982, Weaver et al. 1986).

Combinationsof humanandnaturalinfluences on grizzly habitatare being examined through the use of the

CEA.

Measuring the effectiveness of habitat can be achieved throughCEA anduse of the CEM (U.S. ForestService

1990). The grizzly bear CEM is currently being developed by the U.S. Forest Service, State agencies, and

corporate landholders. Development ofthe CEMrequiresfive phases (1) database compilation, (2) software

development, (3) testing/validation, (4) developmentof mortality routine,and (5) thresholddevelopment.

Currently, data basesare being compiledfor each recovery zone and will be incorporatedinto the modelto

assess the cumulative impacts of natural changes in habitat as well as the impacts of management

prescriptionson habitatconditions.Databases willbe continually upgraded. In theYGBE, asubstantial data

base has been compiled and the CEM is ready to begin the testing/validation phase. The IGBST will be

conducting the testing and validation in the YGBE usingtheir grizzly bear data base.

Once complete, application of the CEMin each ecosystem every 5 years by the land management agencies

would allow reassessment of effective habitat and indicate trends in habitat effectiveness. This type of

monitoring tracks habitat effectiveness over time, and should be incorporated into current agency land

management programs throughout grizzly range. The incorporation of Geographic Information Systems

(GIS) technologyinto CEMmarks a tremendous advancement in the ability to monitorand analyze habitat

trends. Continuous upgrading of the GIS data bases will facilitate habitat monitoring. Information from

various U.S. Forest Service and BLMprojects already is available and will be a constantsource of habitatrelated information.

22 • Part Two I Needsfor Recovery
Because much grizzly habitat has been permanently lost to human use, existing habitat in recovery zones

suitable areas should be managed to improveits flexibility to accommodate grizzly populations in the face

of natural changes such as fire or prolonged drought. For instance, prescribedburning of specific types of

forested and openareas canincrease the berry production inshrubfields. In contrast,fire suppressionduring

drought periods may protect critical riparian areas or already productive shrubfields. Also, if predicted

global climate changes eventually occur, already marginal grizzly habitat in areas such as Yellowstone

National Park maybe rendered unsuitable for grizzly occupancy. Manipulation of portions of habitat to

maintain effective grizzly habitat may help sustain grizzly populations during periods of stress.

ASSUMPTION: This planrecognizes thatManagement SituationsI, II, and III (U.S. ForestService1986), are

most frequently applied within recovery zones and adequately provide for grizzly bear survival and

recovery if fully applied with a commitment to recovery the species. The plan specifically recognizes that

areas designated as Management Situation I provide adequate and necessary conservation measures for

grizzly bears,and alsorecognizesthat provisionsaremade forreclassification of other areastoManagement

Situation I if grizzly bear use and habitat values indicating need are documented.

ManagementSituation I (MS1) areas are those that contain grizzly population centers and/or habitat that

is needed for the survival and recovery of the species. The needs of the grizzly bearwill be given priority

over other management considerations. Land usesthat can affect grizzly bears and/ or their habitatwill be

made compatible with grizzly needs, or such uses will be disallowed or eliminated.

Management Situation II (MS2) areas are those that do not contain grizzly population centers although

grizzlies do occur, andhighly suitable habitatcomponents do not generallyoccur. The needs of the grizzly

bear will be given consideration where feasible. Management would accommodate grizzly populations

and/or habitat use if feasible, but not to the extent of exclusion of other land uses. Human-bear conffict

minimizationwillbe given highpriority. In caseswhere the importance of the habitat resourcesfor recovery

has not yet been determined, other uses may prevail to the extent that they do not preclude the possibility

of eventual restratification to MSI.

Management Situation III (M53) areas are those that contain no suitable habitat for grizzlies, and their

presenceis possible butinfrequent. Grizzlyuse ofsuch areaswill be discouraged. Managementwithin these

areaswillencourage measuresthat minimize the potentialforhuman-bear conflict. Examplesinclude towns

or other residential areas, established campgrounds, or highways.

Island Populations and Grizzly Bears

Grizzly bearhabitat and populations were once continuous and contiguous throughout the Rocky Mountains. Grizzly numbers, habitat, and distribution were reduced through the actions of humans. Present

grizzly range south of Canada consists of five to seven largely discontinuous populations; known grizzly

populations in the YGBE and BE are isolated from all other U.S. and Canadian ecosystems; the NCDE

population is probably largely discontinuous with the CYE; and no interchange of grizzliesis knownto occur

betweenthe CYE andthe SE. Fourpopulations, those in the NCE,SE, CYE, andNCDE, are contiguous with

Canadian populations. However, bear populations in Canada immediately north of the CYE and in the

Canadian portions of the SE andNCE are small. Continuing human developmentin areasin Canada north

of these ecosystemsis threatening to isolate these grizzly populations fromotherbearpopulations inBritish

Columbia. It is widely accepted in conservation biology that island populations of anyspecies are subject

to high rates of extinction and that these rates are directly related to the size of the island. Wide ranging

mammals are particularly sensitive to the detrimental effects of insular distribution.

Needs for Recovery I Part Two • 23
The term isolate or island population indicates any discrete ecological unit that is insulated from other

similar units(Wilcox 1980). Larger areas have morehabitat and greater habitatdiversityto offer all species

or anyparticular species. Reduction of natural habitat and fragmentationinto disjunct insular parcels has

negative effects on natural ecosystems and the species that live within them (Wilcox 1980). Island

populations share definable physical and biological properties and require special management.

Loss andfragmentation of natural habitatis particularlyrelevant to the management and survival of grizzly

bears. Grizzlies are large animals with great metabolic demands requiring extensive home ranges. Their

low densities, low reproductive rate, individualistic behavior, andassociation with ripanan habitat that is

also used extensively by man cause grizzlies to be more vulnerable to extirpation than many other species.

Grizzly bears in isolated habitats require careful management involving all the principles of island

population management and conservation biology.

Ideally, preserving linkage between populationsis a more legitimate long-term conservation strategythan

are attempts to manage separate island populations. Linkage zones are areas between currently separated

populations that provide adequate habitat forlow densities of individualsto exist and move between two

or more larger areas ofsuitable habitat. The existenceof individualsandhabitats within linkage zones could

actto provide a connectionbetweenlarger populations. Linkage zonesenhance the viabilityof populations

that are separated by some distance by facilitating the exchange of individuals and maintaining demographic vigor and genetic diversity.

Aconsideration in future grizzlybear management isthe possibilityof linkage betweenthe existingisland

populations. Many intervening areas between existing grizzly bear recovery zones are largely roaded,

developed, or contain agricultural lands that are unlikely to be crossed by grizzly bears withoutthe chance

of confrontation with humans. Major highways existbetweenvirtually all grizzly bear recovery zones. It

is unknown whether adequate security and cover presently exist to provide for an interchange of grizzly

bears between grizzly bear ecosystems.

Linkage Zone Assessment

One objective of the recovery plan is to identify specific management measures needed to remove

population and habitat limiting factorsso that populations will increase and sustain themselves at levels

identified as the recovely goals. One factor thatmay affect the sustainability of grizzly bear populationsin

the future is the ability of individual animals to move between ecosystems. Accurate information is

necessary to assessthe potentialforthistypeof movement in linkagezones betweenexistingadjacent grizzly

bear recovery zones. The approximate distances between ecosystems are listed below andpresented in fig. 3.

(1) Cabinets—Bitterroots 37 air miles

(2) NCDE—Bitterroots 45 air miles

(3) Bitterroots—Yellowstone 240 air miles

(4) Selkirks—Cabinets 14 air miles

(5) Cabinets—NCDE 35 air miles

(6) North Cascades—nearest Canadian population Unknown

In order to adequately assessthe capacity for linkage, the Service initiated a 5-year process to assess the

linkage potential between the various ecosystems. This process will be led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service in cooperation with the States, provinces, and the various land management agencies. This

evaluation also will addresslinkage potential betweenexisting areas in Canada. Studies of linkage zones

24 • Part TwoI Needs for Recovery
Figure 3. Proposed linkage zone assessment areas and distances between existing ecosystems.

will incorporate the use of GIStechnologyinvolving landscape ecology and spacial analysis. GIS provides

an excellent means to bring together all the various types of information on land use, human activity,

topography, vegetation, and other factors that will influence possible linkage. Some of the information

layers that will be used in this analysis within linkage zones include:

(1) topography

(2) vegetation/cover classes

(3) ownership: Federal, State, provincial, county, private

(4) human settlements/residences

(5) human population density

(6) roads, highways/road density

(7) resource extraction industry activities/timber, mining

(8) recreation activities

GIS and associated technology can visually depict and analyze the extent of habitat alteration and

disturbances between ecosystems. At thistime, very little is knownabout the potentialfor linkage zones.

At the completion of the 5-year evaluationeffort, a report will be available to the IGBC on the potential for

linkage between existing ecosystems. Thisreport will be the basisfor future actions regarding the linkage

zone question. Linkage zones are desirable for recovery, but are not essential for delisting at this time.

Needs for RecoveryI Part Two • 25
Future landmanagement activitieswithin these areasmay be critical tomaintaining their utility as linkage

zones. It is essential that existing options for carnivore movement between existing ecosystems be

maintained while the evaluation of linkage zones is underway. Management strategiesthat limithumaninducedmortality and address access management will facilitate the maintenance of the potential of these

zones duringthe 5-year evaluation period. On public lands, management prescriptionssimilarto big game

summer range prescriptionsthat address access management would likely conserve any existingpotential

of these areas for linkage until completion of the 5-year evaluation process.

Population Viability Management

A relationship exists between the amount of space available and the number of grizzly bearsthat can be

sustained in any area. Although the absolute carrying capacityfor grizzly bears in anyregion is unknown

at this time, the recovery plan establishes a minimum population goal for each recovery zone. For each

recovery zone, goals are based in part on researchinformationon density, habitat use, andhome range from

that specific ecosystem when available, or from reasonable extrapolations of information from other

ecosystems if information is lacking. In each grizzly bear recovery zone, minimum population goals are

established atlevelsthat ensure apopulation ofbearsthatis (1) adequatelydistributed throughout the zone,

(2) reproducing,and (3) can sustain existinglevels of human-causedmortality. Larger ecosystemstherefore

will have higher population goals than smaller ecosystems.

Research data (GrizzlyBearCompendium,1987. Table 11,pp.52-53, andKasworm andManley 1988)show

that the average density of grizzly bears in areas studied in the NCDE, YGBE, and CYE averages

approximately76 km2/bear (29 mi2/bear). Recent researchin the SelkirkMountains estimates a densityof

70.9 km2 /bearwithin acomposite range (Weilgus et al. 1993). Based on these average densities, 90 bears is

areasonable expectation for the both the SelkirkandCabinet/Yaak recovery zones. These populations are

subsets of a much larger population of grizzly bears that is shared between the U.S. and Canada. Both the

Cabinet /Yaak andSelkirkrecovery zones are contiguous with occupied Canadian habitatto the north. This

planwill use aminimum of 90 bears as aminimumpopulation goalin the two smallecosystems contiguous

withCanada,theCabinet/Yaak and Selkirks. Itis importantto notethat no isolated grizzly bearpopulation

will be considered recovered at 90 bears, and no population is expected to get as low as 90 bears. The

Cabinet /Yaak and Selkirks females with cubstargetsindicate aminimum number of atleast 90 bears. Both

bear populations are contiguous with larger populationsto the north in Canada. The targets of a minimum

of 90 bears pertain to only the recovery zones for these two ecosystems. All other grizzly bear ecosystems

have larger recovery zones and higher targets.

Larger recovery zones such as the YGBE and theNCDE can and will sustain larger populations. In these

larger areas, the minimum population expected forrecovery isthe number of bears required for adequate

distribution of reproducing females throughout the ecosystem, and sufficient numbers to sustain the

existing levels of human-caused mortality.

It is important to recognize the limitations of the minimum expected population level of 90 bears in an

isolated population. One minimum viable population (MVP) estimate forgrizzly bears was determined to

be 50-90 bears in an isolated population with no immigration, based on computersimulationmodels using

the best availabledata (Shaffer andSamson1985). These simulationmodels assume sufficient secure habitat

throughout the projection period. An MVP recovery objective for an isolated population would mean

maintaininggrizzly bears on the thresholdof survival. Anytype ofincrease inbear-humanconflict potential

orsignificant change in habitat qualitycould plunge that population over the brink to extinction. Catastrophe, either biological or physical, can seldom be predicted. Also, there is no provision in the MVP

26 • Part Two/ Needs for Recovery
calculations for the potential detrimental effects of loss of genetic diversity in an isolated population over

time due to inbreeding within the population. Currentknowledge of bearbiology isinadequate to attempt

to manage populations of such small size.

These limitations haveresulted in the conclusionthat little reliance forlong-term viabilitycan be placed on

isolated populations of 50-90 grizzly bears. The expected number of 90 bearsis applied to the Selkirks and

Cabinet / Yaak populations; however,neither population isisolated as theyare both contiguous with grizzly

populations in Canada. Continued cooperative efforts between the U.S. and Canada will promote the

conservation of the grizzly populations in these areas.

Recoveredpopulations forthe Bitterroots andNorthCascadesare likelyto be in the range of 200 to 400bears,

based on the needforlargerpopulations as detailedabove andon the size ofthe recovery zones inthese areas.

The number of bears expected will depend on the relationshipbetween the size of the area determined to

be within the recovery zones and the habitat capability of the area.

Management of Genetic Diversity

Thereis aconcernabout the potentialdeterioration in genetic variation in isolated grizzly bearpopulations

(Allendorf and Servheen1986) because of potential harmfuleffects on development, reproduction,survival,

and growth rate. A review of the impacts of loss of genetic diversity and the need to maintain sufficient

population size to ensure fitness and evolutionary potential is presented by Soule (1980). Reduction in

grizzly bearrange hasresulted in elimination ofhistoric levels of gene flow throughout the southern portion

of grizzly bear range. Little evidence is available to indicate thatthere are locally adapted subpopulations

in the remaining range in western Montana, northwestern Wyoming,and Idaho. Exceptfor the San Juans.

all ecosystems were likely contiguous approximately 100 years ago. The San Juans were historically

contiguous with other bear populations in the western U.S., however it is unknown when the San Juan

ecosystem became isolated due to the elimination of adjacent grizzly bear populations. The contiguous

nature of the San Juans in recent timesis unknown. The Yellowstone ecosystemwaslikely cutoff from the

other ecosystems 60-80 years or six to eight generations ago.

Simulations have demonstrated that the effective population size (Ne) for existing small grizzly bear

populations does not approach sufficientnumbersto avoid detrimental loss of geneticvariation in the short

term (Harris 1985, Harris and Allendorf 1989). Although no detrimental effects due to genetic constraints

have been reported in the Yellowstone grizzly population,it is consideredsound management to consider

proactive management measures to ensure minimalloss of genetic variation in this isolated population.

Detrimental effects dueto geneticproblemssuch as decreased survival of youngor lowered littersize could

be falsely attributed to otherfactors. Additionally, effects such as intrauterinemortality or mortality of cubs

priorto emergence from the denlikely would never be detected.

Where feasible, proactive management programs that ensure minimal loss of genetic variation can be

assumed to be a sound approach to conservation. Because the absolute minimum number of animals

necessaryto avoid seriousloss of genetic diversity in grizzly bear populations is unknown, it is suggested

that proactive enhancement of geneticdiversity be implemented inisolated smallpopulations(Harris 1985).

Because the Yellowstone recovery zone population is the only population presently known to be isolated

from other grizzly populationsin the U.S. or Canada,it isthe only population forwhichgeneticmanagement

is believed prudent atthistime. Simulations (Harris 1985)to determinethe required numberof animals and

the interval of placement establish that one animalshould enterthe breeding population each generation.

Generation time for grizzly bears is estimated to be 10 years (Harris and Allendorf 1989).

Needs for Recovery / Part Two • 27
Bears placed into the ecosystem should be monitored to confirmtheirsurvival andentry into the breeding

population. Connections betweenthe grizzly bearecosystems probably existed as recently as 100 years ago.

This factor reduces the probability that artificial movement of bears for genetic management between

Yellowstone and other areas could result in hybridization between different co-adapted g~ene complexes.

Such hybridization can result in outbreeding depression.

The specific techniques necessary for maximum successin placing grizzly bears from one population into

another and having them enter the breeding population are as yet unknown. Placement of bears for

demographic purposesis presentlybeing testedin theCabinet Mountains portionof theCabinet/Yaak area

(Servheen et al. 1987). The results of this work, alongwith considerations of the most appropriate sex and

age classes for maximizing the success of genetic management, will be the basis for placement of one

breeding animal per generation into the Yellowstone area population. Placement of bears into the

Yellowstone grizzly population will be an experimental effort that must be evaluated to determine its

effectiveness over time.

Ecosystem Management and Benefits to Other Species

The management of grizzly bears and grizzly bear habitathas the potentialto benefit many otherspecies.

The grizzly is aspeciesthatinhabits many diverse landscapeswithin the larger remaining wild habitats in

the northern Rocky Mountains. The present range of the grizzly also encompasses the majority of the

remaining range of the endangeredRockyMountainwolf (Canis lupus), and thewolverine(Gulo), as wellas

the Rocky Mountain populations of lynx (Lynx), and fisher (Martes pennanhi). Grizzly bear habitat

management alsowillbenefit elk (Cervus canadensis), mule deer(Odocoileus hemion us), and white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus). Benefits of grizzly bearhabitat management include access management,silvicultural management, maintenance of linkage between habitatregions, and sanitation standards that secure

human-caused attractants. These aspectsof grizzlybearmanagement aid in themaintenanceof diverse and

healthy animal and plant communities. Grizzly bear habitat management complements or is often

analogous to sound forest management.

The grizzly bearhasbeencalled anumbrella species—onewhose needs andrange encompassthoseof awide

variety of other species. Because the grizzly has one of the largest average home ranges of anymammal

speciesandbecause it occupies a variety of habitats fromvalleybottom riparian zones to alpine mountain

tops, it is perhaps the best example of an umbrella species in the Rocky Mountains. Grizzly bear

management will offer benefits to many other flora and fauna. Prudent wildlife habitat management,

including grizzly bear habitat management,has the potential to diminish the number of plant and animal

species that may require eventual protection under the Act.

Human Social Factors in Grizzly Bear Recovery

The present status of the grizzly bearislargely aresult ofsocialbeliefsystemsin the AmericanWestthat were

intolerant of grizzly bears and otherlargecarnivores, and the economic factorsthatled to the doctrine that

anynatural feature that might inhibiteconomic gaincould and should be controlled. Thus, the recovery of

the grizzly bear mustrely heavily on the understanding of existingsocial perceptions of grizzly bears and

the means to influence these perceptions. Decisions concerning the economic utilization of grizzly bear

habitatforcommodity production andlanddevelopmentandthe economicbase of the communities in these

areas are directly relatedto the conservation.and survival of the grizzly bearin these areas. Such economic

decisions must include consideration of the impacts of each decision on the survival of the grizzly bear.

Kellert (1986) has summarized the importance of this link between economics and species survival:

28 • Part Two I Needs for Recovery
“Theprimaryneedis to ensure that considerations of species preservation are not perceived

andtreated apart fromfundamentalsocioeconomic decisions. Indeed,the exclusion ofsuch

environmental assessments from most societal evaluations may historically have been the

most significant factor in the process leading to the decline and endangerment of many

species. To regard any economic system as environmentally separate, independent, and

superior is, in otherwords, to invite species degradation and decline.”

The future of the grizzly bear will depend on integrating, as Kellert (1986) states: “the socioeconomic and

utilitarian values of the general [local]population into the establishment and management of preservation

programs.” This impliesthatlocal communitiesmust be owners of the concept of grizzlybear conservation.

Value systems that are imposed on local communities will not foster support for the conservation of the

grizzly. Local values and traditions must be integrated into grizzly bear preservation to enhance local

support. A management systemthat seeks to integrate all biological, social, valuational, andinstitutional

forces toward a common effort involving grizzly bear conservation (fig. 4) will have the highest chance of

success.

BIOPHYSICAL

Population Distribution /Abundance

Reproductive Ecology

Habitat Use/Dependence ~

Prey/Predator Relations

BehavioralEcology

Ecosystem Structure

A Etc.

V

‘4

WILDLIFE

POLICY

SOCIAL•STRUCTU RAL

I

Formal Authority

Informal Authority

Power Structure

Social Stratification

Property Relations

Land Use Relations

ResourceUse/Control

Etc.

it

VALUATIONAL

Aesthetic

Ecological

Ethical

Historical

Recreational

Spiritual

Utilitarian

Etc.

- 25#

INSTITUTIONALREGULATORY

Legal

Legislative

Pressure Groups

Bureaucratic Relations

Organizational Structures

Litigation

Constituency Relations

Etc.

Figure 4.

Major variables

and important

forces in

wildlife policy

implementation

Needs for Recovery I Part Two • 29
Social tolerance can increase effective habitat in areaswhere bears andhumans must coexist, whether itbe

in backcountry wilderness or in areas of human settlement on the edges of wild lands. Kellert (1985) and

Decker and Purdy (1988) emphasized the importance of social attitudes for conservation of any species.

Gaining the support and confidence of people who live in or near grizzly habitat is one of the greatest

challengesto grizzlybearrecovery. Effortswhichaddressthe attitudes andconcerns of thelocal public serve

to foster tolerance and positive attitudes toward grizzly bears in communities throughout grizzly bear

habitat. These efforts indude intensive education programs concerning grizzly bears, cooperative and

consistent nuisance bear control programs, proactive livestock and garbage management projects that

reduce bearattractants on privateland, andthe maintenance of personal contactbetweencitizens and State

andFederalwildlife biologistswholive andworktogether in local communitiesandruralareas neargrizzly

habitat. The continuation and/or implementation of these cooperative efforts by State, Federal, and

provincial wildlife and landmanagement agencies, local governments, conservation groups, and private

citizens, is critical to the recovery of grizzly bearsin all ecosystems.

Social concerns are often best addressed by integratinglocal concerns into management actions. In areas

where segmentsof the public perceive grizzly bearmanagement as additional,unnecessaryrestrictions on

local economies and livelihoods, the implementation of grizzly bear recovery actions involves disputes

concerningthe positions ofthe partiesinvolved(table 1). Insuch cases,itmaybe usefulto approach the issue

from the discussion of the interests of the parties as illustrated in table one. When discussions focus on

interests, the resolution of the conflictsmaybe greatly facilitatedbecause the interestsof the partiesmay be

muchmore compatible thanthe positions appearto be. This approach is also usefulin understanding and

integrating the concerns of the local public into grizzly bear management actions, thus fostering local

support and ownership of grizzly bear recovery activities.

Table 1. This matrix demonstrates how discussions based on different positions can lead to continuing

conflict. Discussions based on different interests will allow realization of common ground and thereby

resolution of conflicting positions.

The Position V. interest Matrix

Agencies Commodity Interest

Umit roads MaIntain forest access

limit road use fl0 restrictions

Position provide security areas more timber sales

more public education eliminate recovery effort

introduce bears elimInate bears

Increase bear security healthy local economy

increase habitat security economic Security

Interest increase bear survival safety in the forest

better distribution recreational opportunity

more reproduction reliable timber output

30 • Part Two I Needs for Recovery
Summary

Recovery plans are scheduled forperiodic reviews. This revision is a 10-yearrevision of the 1982 recovery

plan. This plan will be reviewed every 5 years andwill be furtherrevised as necessary. Therefore, this plan

is not afinal plan on behalf of grizzly bears. The bestscientific information and knowledge available was

used to develop this plan as a guide to increase the present numbers of bears, to effect recovery, and to

preserve the ecosystems upon whichthisspecies depends. This planisintended to be dynamicand will be

revised as future research indicatesthat changes are needed.

The test of time will determine the validity of the methods employed to conserve grizzly bears in the

conterminous U.S. Human impactsin North Americaoverthe past200 years and their cumulative effects

on grizzly bears are history. The fact that grizzly bearsstill survive in these sixareasspeaks of their tenacity

andresiliency. The remaining areas ofsuitable habitat will support afinite number of bears. Eachyear,more

peoplemoveinto grizzly habitatandthe surrounding areas, andthese areas experience increased andvaried

impacts from humanactivities such as mineral and energy development, recreation, grazing, logging, and

subdivisions. If left unchecked and without long-rangeplanning, these impacts will reduce the capacity of

the habitatfor grizzly bears. Muchhas beenaccomplished by State, provincial, Federal, and tribal agencies,

conservation groups, and private citizensto reduce negative impacts of humanactivity on grizzly bears. If

grizzly bears and people are to coexist in the lower 48 States, the continuation of these ongoing efforts to

minimize the effects of human actions on bears and bear habitat isimperative.

Needs for Recovery I Part Two • 31
PART 3 
Recovery

The plan addresses seven areasin the conterminous 48 States where grizzly bears are knownor thoughtto

havebeenpresentin 1975. These seven areas occurin the states of Montana, Wyoming,Idaho, Washington,

and Colorado. These seven grizzly bear ecosystems either have or recently had the potential to provide

adequate space and habitat to maintain the grizzly bear as a viable and self-sustaining species. These

populations will be judged to be viable when they meet the demographic recovery targets and it can be

demonstrated that adequate regulatory mechanisms exist to ensure continued population and habitat

management after delisting.

The overall goal of the plan is to removethe grizzly bear fromthreatened status in each of the ecosystems

in the 48 conterminous States. This will be achieved by:

(1) meeting the demographic recovery goals of:

(a) For the YGBE, 15 females with cubs over arunning 6-year average both inside the recovery zone

and within a 10 mile area immediately surrounding the recovery zone; 16 of 18 BMU’s occupied

by females withyoung from arunning 6-yearsumof verified sightings andevidence, andwithin

the Plateau and Henry’s LakeBMU’s, a study will be initiated in 1993 to determine the potential

and present habitatcapability of theseBMU’s to support females with cubs; and no two adjacent

BMU’s shall be unoccupied; and known human-caused mortality not to exceed 4 percent of the

population estimatebased on the most recent3-year sumof females with cubs. Furthermore, no

more than 30 percent of this 4 percent mortality limit shall be females. These mortality limits

cannot be exceeded during any 2 consecutive yearsfor recovery to be achieved.

(b) For theNCDE, 10 females with cubsinside Glacier NationalPark (GNP) and12 females with cubs

outside GNP over arunning 6-year average both inside the recovery zone and within a 10 mile

area immediately surrounding the recovery zone, excludingCanada; 21 of23 BMU’s occupied by

females with young froma running 6-yearsum of verified sightings and evidence, with no two

adjacent BMU’s unoccupied; and knownhuman-caused mortality not to exceed 4 percent of the

population estimate based on themost recent3-year sum of females with cubs. Furthermore, no

more than 30 percent of this 4 percent mortality limit shall be females. These mortality limits

cannot be exceeded during any 2 consecutive years for recovery to be achieved. Furthermore,

recovery cannot be achieved without occupancy in the Mission Mountains portion of this

ecosystem.

(c) For the CYE, sixfemales with cubs over arunning 6-year average both inside the recovery zone

and within a 10 mile area immediately surrounding the recovery zone, excluding Canada; 18 of

22 BMU’s occupied by females with young froma running 6-year sum of verified sightings and

evidence; and knownhuman-caused mortality not to exceed 4 percent of the population estimate

based on themostrecent 3-yearsumof females with cubs. Furthermore,no more than 30 percent

of this 4 percentmortality limitshallbe females. These mortality limits cannot be exceededduring

any2 consecutiveyears forrecovery to be achieved. Presently,grizzly bear numbersare sosmall

in this ecosystem that the mortality goalshall be zero known human-caused mortalities.

(d) For the SE, sixfemales with cubs over arunning 6-year average both inside the recovery zone and

within a 10 mile area immediately surrounding the recovery zone, including Canada; 7 of 10

BMU’s on the U.S. side occupied by females with young from a running 6-year sum of verified

Recovery I Part Three • 33
sightings and evidence; and known human-caused mortality not to exceed 4 percent of the

population estimate based on themost recent3-year sum of females with cubs. Furthermore, no

more than 30 percent of this 4 percent mortality limit shall be females. These mortality limits

cannot be exceededduringany2 consecutiveyears forrecovery to be achieved. Presently,grizzly

bear numbersare so smallin thisecosystem that themortality goalshall be zero known humancaused mortalities.

(e) Specific goals forthe NCEandBE currently arebeing developed andwillbe appended to thisplan

when finalized.

(2) demonstrating the existenceof adequate regulatory mechanismsforpopulation and habitat management through the development of a conservation strategy for each ecosystem.

Step.Down Outline

1.Establish the population objective for recovery and identify limiting factors.

11. Determine population conditions at which the species is viable and self-sustaining for each

ecosystem.

111. Determine population monitoring methods and criteria.

112. Establish reporting procedures and systems to gather and evaluate information on populations.

12. Determine current populationconditions.

13. Identify the human-related populationlimiting factors ifpresent populations differfrom desired.

131. Identify sources of direct mortality.

132. Identify sources of indirect mortality.

133. Determine effects of humanactivities on bears and bear habitat, and incorporate the results

into management plans and decisions on human activities.

2. Redress population-limiting factors.

21. Manage sources of direct mortality.

211. Reduce illegal killing.

2111. Coordinate State, Federal, and tribal law enforcement efforts.

2112. Reduce illegal killing bybig game hunters andmistaken-identity killing byblack bear

hunters.

2113. Investigate and prosecute illegal killing of grizzly bears.

34 • Part Three I Recovery
2114. Reduce accidental mortality.

21141. Increase efforts to clean up carrion and other attractants in association with

roads, human habitation, and developed areas within recovery zones.

21142. Reduce losses due to mishandling of bears during researchand management

actions through development of abear handling manual.

21143. Reduce losses due to predator and rodent control.

21144. Ensure that control of nuisance bears is accomplished according to 50 CFR

17.40 and the Guidelines.

21145. Reducelosses by developingandimplementing public education and awareness programs.

212. Appoint a grizzly bear mortality coordinator.

22. Identify and reduce sources of indirect mortality.

221. Make domestic livestock grazing compatiblewith grizzly bear habitat requirements.

222. Make timber harvest and road building compatiblewith grizzly bearhabitatrequirements.

223. Make mining and oil and gas exploration and development compatible with grizzly bear

habitat requirements.

224. Make recreation on Federal lands compatiblewith grizzly bear habitat needs.

225. Coordinate with State and county governments to make land-development and land-use

decisions within the recovery zones compatible with grizzly bear habitat needs.

226. Monitor the cumulative effects of management actions in grizzly bear habitat.

23. Coordinate, monitor, and report activities relating to redressing population limiting factors, and

monitor compliance with the recovery plan.

3. Determine the habitat and space required for the achievement of the grizzly bearpopulation goal.

31. Define the recovery zone within whichthe grizzly bear will be managed.

32. Identifyagency management stratificationswithin the Recovery Zone including the delineation

of BMU’s and Management Situations I, II, or III as defined in the Interagency Grizzly Bear

Guidelines.

33. Conduct research to determine extent of grizzly bear range.

Recovery I Part Three • 35
34. Conduct research to determine habitat use, food habits, home range size, and seasonal habitat

preference, and incorporate into habitat management programs.

35. Conduct research to determine the relationshipbetween habitatvalues, physiological condition

of bears, and the ability of the habitat to sustain a population densitynecessary to achieve viable

population size.

36. Conduct researchto determine the effects of variousroad densities on grizzlybearhabitatuse and

human-caused bear mortality.

37. Conduct research on the effects of habitat fragmentation caused by humanactivities in orderto

assess the possibility of linkage between grizzly bear ecosystems and between habitat tracts

within ecosystems.

38. Evaluate the applicability of population viabilityanalyses to grizzly bear recovery.

4. Monitor populations and habitats.

41. Monitor populations before, during, and after recovery.

411. Develop and conduct an intensive monitoring system to measure the annual number of

females with cubs, familygroups, and number of human-caused mortalities.

12. Develop a system of responsibilities to collate, analyze, and report annual information on

population data.

413. Standardize observation reportforms and methods, and develop training methods for all

persons involved in reporting sightings of females with cubs and family groups.

414. Monitor relocated bears in orderto assess the success of nuisance bear management.

42. Monitor habitats before, during, and after recovery.

421. Develop and apply the CEA processto allowmonitoring of effects of management actions

over alarge geograhpic area of habitat.

422. Complete habitatmappingof the recovery zones anddigitize these data sotheyare available

for use by the CEA.

423. Establish a threshold of minimal habitat values to be maintained within each CEA unit in

order to ensure that sufficient habitat is available to support a viable population.

424. Apply CEA to each BMU to ensure habitat quality is sufficientfor maintenance of a viable

population and to monitor changesin habitat as a result of human activity.

425. Report activities successfully used to manage habitat.

36 • Part Three I Recovery
426. Develop a conservation strategy to outline habitat and population monitoring that will

continue in force after recovery.

5. Manage populations and habitats.

51. Manage populations and habitats prior to recovery on Federallands.

511. Refine procedures for aversively conditioning or relocating nuisance grizzly bears.

512. Develop and test procedures to relocate bears between areas for demographic or genetic

purposes.

513. Apply Interagency GrizzlyBearManagementGuidelinespriorto recovery thatmaintainor

enhance habitats.

52. Manage populations and habitats on private and State lands by developing and applying

management guidelines prior to recovery that maintain or enhance habitats. Recommend land

use activities compatible with grizzly bear requirements for space and habitat; minimize the

potentialfor human/bear conflicts.

53. Develop and implement a conservation strategyfor each ecosystem that outlinesall habitat and

population regulatory mechanismsin force after recovery.

6. Develop and initiate appropriate information and education programs.

61. Evaluate public attitudestoward grizzly bear management,habitatprotection and maintenance,

land use restrictions, mitigating measures, relocation of bears, hunting, nuisance bear control

actions, and habitat acquisition or easement.

62. Formulate ways to improve public attitudes about grizzly bears and the grizzly bear recovery

program.

7. Implement the recovery plan through appointment of a Recovery Coordinator.

8. Reviseappropriate Federaland State regulationsto reflectcurrent situations andinitiate international

cooperation.

81. Revise Federal and State regulations as necessary.

82. Coordinateand exchange information andexpertisewithCanadaand othercountries concerning

bear research and management.

Recovery I Part Three • 37
MONTANA 

WYOMING 

Figure 5 
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Subgoal: For the Yellowstone Grizzly BearRecovery Zone (YGBE), 15 females with cubs over a

running 6-year average both inside the recovery zone and within a 10 mile area immediately

surrounding the recovery zone; 16 of 18 BMU’s occupied by females with youngfrom arunning 6-

year sum of observations, and within the Plateau and Henry’s Lake BMU’s, a study will be

initiatedin 1993 to determine thecapability of theseBMU’s to supportfemales withyoungno two

adjacentBMU’s shall be unoccupied;and known, human-causedmortality notto exceed 4 percent

ofthepopulation estimate basedon themostrecent3-yearsumoffemaleswith cubs. Furthermore,

no more than 30 percentof this 4 percent mortality limitshall befemales. These mortality limits

cannot be exceeded during any2 consecutive yearsfor recovery to be achieved.

Establish the Population Objective for Recovery and Identify Limiting Factors. (Vi)

The population objective for the YGBE was based on data accumulated since 1975 on food habits,

distribution, bear! human conflicts, home range, and density. Consideration of limiting factorsincluded

information on annual fluctuation in food sources, adult female survivorship, levels of human-caused

mortality, and ongoing conflictsin the ecosystem, as well as demographic concerns. The goals detailedin

this chapter are based on the best available scientific information on the population and are believed

necessary for the population to be viableand as self-sustaining as possible in this ecosystem. These goals

will be revised as necessary or as new informationbecomes available.

Recovery targetsfor the YGBE grizzly bearrecovery zone were developed usingthe followingassumptions

and data:

(1) Recovery of the YGBEpopulation depends upon verificationthat the population meets the criteria for

a recovered population. A recovered population is defined as onethat:

(a) can sustain the existing level of known and estimated unknown, unreported human-caused

mortality that exists within the ecosystem; and

(b) is well distributed throughout the ecosystem.

(2) The target for the minimum number of unduplicated females with cubs on a running 6-year average

isiSverified reports, both inside the recoveryzone and within a10 mile area immediately surrounding

the recovery zone. The target was derivedusingthe followingfacts andassumptions about the grizzly

bear population in the YGBE:

(a) A running 6-year average of unduplicated females with cubs is based on a 3-year reproductive

cycle and will allow at least 2 years when each adult femalealive can be reported with cubs. A

running 6-year tallywillstabilize the average andmake it less sensitive to differences in levels of

annual reporting effort and sightability.

(b) On average, 33 percent of adult females(at least 5 years old) will be with cubs each year. This is

based on an average 3-year reproductive interval for adult female grizzly bears. The 6-year

average number of femaleswith cubs can bemultiplied by threeto estimate theminimumnumber

of adult females in the population.

Recovery I Part Three • 41
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

(c) The reporting efficiencyfor females with cubsis high in the YGBEcompared to other ecosystems.

This is due to a largeamount of open habitatwherebears are visible, anational park in the center

of the recovery zone, and no regulated huntingof grizzly bears since 1974, resultingin less wary

bears. These factorsresult in a higher level of sightings of females with cubs as compared to

sightingsin other ecosystems. Itis recognized that not all females with cubs are seen and that the

numberreported each yearrepresents only a known minimumnumber. However, a maximally

conservative approach is warrantedbecause the YGBEcontains an isolated population of bears.

Therefore, a sighting efficiency correction factor is not applied to the Yellowstone data and the

unduplicatedfemales withcubs actuallyseen are assumedto be the minimumnumber of females

with cubs alive in the ecosystem. The calculated minimum number of females with cubs will

underestimate the actual number.

(d) The grizzly population in the YGBEis assumed to be 44 percent adults and 56 percent subadults

(Knight and Blanchard, unpublished data).

(e) The M:F sex ratio in the YGBE of adults and subadultsis 51:49 (Knight et al. 1988, Appendix C).

(f) The proportion of adult femalesin the population is 28.40 percent (usingmethods in Knight et al.

1988, Appendix C, and Knight et al. 1993, Appendix D).

The target of least 15 unduplicated females with cubs indicates a minimum population average of at

least 158 bears (using methods in Knight et al. 1988): 15 females with cubs seen x 3 = 45 total adult

females; and45 divided by .2840 (the proportion of adult females in the population) = a minimum of

158 grizzly bears in the YGBE:

45

= 158 grizzly bears

.2840

(3) Human-caused grizzly mortalities will continue atsome long-term rate dueto inevitable interactions

betweenbears andpeople throughout the 9,500mi2 (24,605kin2) ecosystem. These mortality levels are

likely to increase as the bear population increases and human-bear interactions increase.

(4) Unknown, unreported, human-caused mortality occurs each yearat some level.

(5) Known human-caused mortality for grizzly bears in the YGBEaveraged (from Craighead et al. 1988,

and Knight et al. 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993):

Year Known Human-Caused Mortality

All bears All females Adult females

1987 3 2

1988 6 2

1989 2 0

1990 9 6 4

1991 0 0 0

1992 4 1 0

TOTAL 24 11 4 (3 Year Sum)

6-Year Average 4 /Year 2 /Year

42 • Part Three I Recovery
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

(6) There is a relationshipbetween sustainable human-caused mortality, recruitment of animals into the

population, and the number of unduplicated females with cubs. Therefore, estimates of the number

of females with cubs isimportant for managing mortality.

(7) The calculation of the annual mortality limitis based on themore conservative number of adult females

known to be alive forthe past 3 years. The following YGBE minimum population estimate for the fall

of 1992 was calculated using the assumptionslisted above (items 2c-2f) and methods in Knight et al.

(1988, Appendix C): The latest number of knownadult femalesis the sumof the unduplicatedfemales

with cubs 1990-1992: 24 + 24 + 23 = 71, minusthe 4 known adult femalemortalities during this3-year

period, whichyields a minimum of 67 adult females alive as of January 1993 (Knight et al. 1993). The

number of adult females can be used with the method in Knight etal. (1988) to estimate the minimum

population size as follows:

Total Population = 67 adult females present

proportion adult females in population

The minimum calculated population is 67 — 236 grizzly bears

2840

(8) The maximum human-caused mortality level that can be sustained without population declineby a

grizzly bear population with the above-assumed characteristics is 6 percent, applied to the entire

population, and no more than 30 percent of these mortalities should be females (Harris 1984).

(9) The present minimum population estimate is 236 (see item 7 above) whichcould sustain amaximum

human-causedmortality level of 6 percent or:

236 x 0.06 = 14 human-caused bearmortalities

(10) In order to facilitate recovery of the population, and to allow for both errorin minimum population

estimates and for unknown unreported mortality, the known human-caused mortality limit for the

YGBE population isset at4 percent of themost recentpopulation estimatebased on the 3-yearsum of

femaleswith cubs. Nomore than30 percent of this mortality limitmaybe females. The annual known

human-causedmortality limitwill be set by calculating theminimum population estimateforthe year

and setting the mortality limit for that year at 4 percent of this average.

Thelead forcompiling these annual calculationsshallbe theRecovery Coordinatorof the U.S. Fishand

WildlifeService workingin cooperationwith other agencies. Management should seek to ensure that

known, human-caused mortality does not exceed this limit. In order to account for changes in

population size, the mortality limit will be calculated annually using the most recent 3-year sum of

females with cubs as described in item 7 (above). This mortality level is conservative because:

(a) it is applied to a minimum population estimate that is based on only those females with cubs

actually seen in the YGBE. It is recognized that the actual population size is higher than the

minimum estimate; and

(b) according to Harris (1984), a grizzly bear population using assumptions for interior Rocky

Mountain areas can sustain 6 percent human-caused mortality without experiencinga decline in

that population.

RecoverylPart Three • 43
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

For the present YGBEpopulation estimate, a4 percent known human-caused mortality limitis equivalent

to:

236 x 0.04 = 9 human-caused bearmortalities

9 x 0.30 = 3 human-caused female bear mortalities

(11) The 4 percent known, human-causedmortality limit for 1993 is ninebears (see item 10). The current

6-year average of annual, known,human-caused mortalityis 4 bears (see item 5 above), or 1.7 percent

of the minimum population estimate of 236 bears. This is below the limitof 4 percent.

The known,human-caused femalemortality limit for 1993 is 30 percent of nine, or three females annually

(see item 10). The current6-year averageof annual, known,human-causedfemalemortality istwo (see item

5). This is 22 percent of 9, which is below the limit of 30 percent.

Human-caused grizzly mortality in the YGBE appears to be within sustainablelevels at thistime.

Determine Population Conditions at which the Species Is Viable and Self.sustainlng. (Vii)

Reevaluate and refine population criteria as new information becomes available. The grizzly bear

population in the YGBEwill be viablewhenmonitoring effortsindicate thatrecruitment andmortality

are at levels supporting a stable to increasing population, and reproducing females are distributed

throughout the recovery zone. The population will be judged as meeting recovery population

requirements when, as determined through systematic monitoring throughout the recovery zone, it

meets each of the following criteria:

(a) The average number of unduplicated femalegrizzly bears with cubs-of-the-yearis aminimum of

15 annually on a running 6-year average.

(b) The distribution of familygroups of grizzly bears representedby femalegrizzly bears accompaniedby cubs, yearlings, or 2-year oldsisreported in 16 of the 18 BMU’s, on arunning 6-yearsum

of observationswith no two adjacentBMU’s unoccupied. Thisis equivalent to verified evidence

of at least one female grizzly bear female with young at least once in each BMU over a 6-year

period. The distributionisindicated by verified sightingsorverified evidence such astracks. The

Plateau andHenry’sLakeBMU’s will be the focusof astudy started in 1993 to determine their past

and present habitatpotential foroccupancy by females with young. Considerations of recovery

for the Yellowstone population will be suspended until the potentialfor occupancy within the

Plateau andHenry’s Lake BMU’s by femalesis understood as determined by completion of the

special study.

(c) The knownhuman-causedmortality level does not exceed 4 percent ofthe average of the previous

3 years minimum population estimatebased on the unduplicated number of females with cubs,

minus known, adult female deaths (see Y1.). In addition, the known, human-caused female

mortality shall be no more than 30 percent of the total known mortality limit.

Other parameters may be monitored to evaluate the status of the YGBE population, however, the

primaryparameters thatwill be used tojudge the status of the population for achievement of recovery

anddelistingwill be the threeparameters detailedabove: unduplicated females with cubs,distribution

of females with young, and annual human-caused mortality.

44 • Part Three I Recovery
Yellowstone GrluIy Bear Recovery Zone

Determine Population Monitoring Methods and Criteria. (Y1 11)

The maintenanceof a secure androbust grizzly bearpopulation will require careful, continuous

monitoring. This monitoring should provide data to reasonably ensure that the population is

secure. The greater the number of parameters monitored, the greater the assurance that the

information is representative of the status of the population.

Withthisinmind, asystemhasbeen developed to monitora wide range of parameters, with three

being of primary importance. These include: unduplicated number of females with cubs seen

annually, the distribution of females with young throughout the ecosystem, and the annual

number of known human-causedmortalities. Other factorsshould alsobe monitored to increase

confidence inthe information,but these threeparameters will be the keycriteria used tojudge the

status of the population.

The target of distributionby females with young is designed to demonstrate adequate dispersion

ofthe reproductive cohort within the recovery zone. Distributionofreproducing females will also

provide evidence of adequate habitat management,assuming that successfulreproduction is an

indicator of habitat sufficiency. Lastly, adequate distribution of family groupsindicates future

occupancy of these areas becausegrizzlybearoffspring, especiallyfemales, tendto occupyhabitat

within or near the home range of their mother after weaning.

The YGBEhasawide variety of habitat values. The distributionof bears, especiallyfemales with

cubs, is directly relatedto the habitatvalues within any area. Areasof higher quality habitatare

more likely to support higher densities of bearsthan areas of lower quality habitat. The recovery

criterion of distributionof familygroups of bearsismeasured within the BMU’s. However, these

BMU’s were not originallydelineated for measurementof the distribution offemales withyoung.

The BMU’s were used as the area measurement for distribution of family groups because they

already existed and their names andboundary lineswere wellknown by management authorities.

UsingBMU lines for measurement of the distribution of females with younghas adisadvantage

in that each area has adifferent overall valueas bear habitat. The probability ofseeing evidence

of grizzly bears, especially females with young, is directly relatedto the habitatvalues of an area.

This leads to different probabilities of expectingto see family groups of bearsin each BMU.

In orderto apply reasonablythe distributioncriteria to theBMU’s, each was subjectivelyjudged

by the IGBSTon overall habitatvaluewith the expectation ofseeing familygroups. The result of

thisreviewwasthattwo BMU’s, the Plateau andHenry’s LakeBMU’s, hadlowhabitatvalue, and

thus a lower probability of seeing grizzly bear family groups relative to the other 16 BMU’s.

Because of the lower probability ofseeing family groupsin these areas,further habitatevaluation

is necessarybefore afirmdecision is made on the requirementsforoccupancy within these areas.

A study should be initiated in 1993 to evaluate the habitat and the methods of locating female

grizzly bear~ with cubsin the Plateau and Henry’s Lake BMU’s. At the end of thisstudy,a final

decisionshould bemade as to the requirementsfor occupancy in these areas. During the interim

period, efforts should continue to find evidence of occupancy by reproducing females in these

areas.

All otherBMU’s hada reasonable probability ofseeing familygroupsand the standard of 6years

of cumulative reports should be applied to these 16 BMIJ’s. The recovery criteria for these

remaining 16 BMU’s will be evidence of familygroups within each running 6-year period.

Recovery I Part Three • 45
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Establish Reporting Procedures and Systems to Gather and Evaluate InformatIon on

Populations. (Vii2)

All cooperating agency personnel should report females with cubs, and females with young, on

the standardformas statedin theGuidelines (U.S. ForestService 1986). Agency personnelshould

be assigned to and responsible for one or more BMU’s to ensure consistency in the collection of

reporting information. It should be the responsibility of such personnel to submit an annual

report of the number of verified females with cubs fortheir respectiveBMU’s to the appropriate

reporting point by December 1 for compilation.

To eliminate duplicate reports, all sightings and track data should be reviewed by agency

representatives atan annual meeting. Methods foreliminating duplicate reports should follow

Knight and Blanchard (1993). A running 6-year average of unduplicated females with cubs will

be calculated using the annual report data. All unduplicated females with cubs outside the

recovery zone linebut within 10 airline milesof theline shallbe countedas part of the totalnumber

seen within the recovery zone.

Additionally, verified observations of females with young and verified evidence such as tracks

should be plotted annually fora running 6-year cumulativetotalfor determination of occupancy

in all BMU’s.

Determine Current Population Conditions. (V12)

The present grizzly bear population in the YGBE is described by the followingpopulation characteristics (IGBST data):

Annual average unduplicated

females with cubs 19.8

(1987-1992 6-yr. avg.) (fig. 6)

Annual average known,

human-caused female deaths 1.8

(1987-1992 6-yr. avg.)

Annual average known

human-caused deaths 4.0

(1987-1992 6 yr. avg.)

Number BMU’s

w/family groups 16 of 18

(1987-1992 running sum)

Plateau and Figure 6. Unduplicated females with cubs in the Yellowstone

Henry’s Lake BMU’s 1 of 2 Ecosystem, 1987-1992. Average=1 9.8.

(1983-1 992 running sum)

46 • Part Three I Recovery
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Identify the Human•related Population Limiting Factors if Present Populations Differ from

Desired. (V13)

Mortality from direct and indirect sources both within and surrounding the recovery zone must

continue to be addressed ifpopulations are to be recovered. Severalprograms are currently conducted

by State wildlife agencies and through cooperative efforts of State and Federal agencies. These

programs have been successful in managing mortality and should continue into the future.

Identify Sources of Direct Mortality. (V131)

Sources of direct mortality include poaching, vandal killing, and malicious killing. Accidental

killings are aresult of mistakenidentityby blackbear hunters. Private citizen controlby livestock

operators, apiarists, outfitters, hunter defense of quarry, and resort operators for protection of

property also results in direct mortality. Accidental deaths result fromroad kills(automobiles,

trains, etc.) or handling error when bears are captured for management or research. Direct

mortality also occurs during agency control of nuisance bears for livestock conflicts, other

property damage, or life-threatening situations. Live removal of a grizzly to a zoo or another

ecosystem as part of nuisancebearmanagement is alsoconsideredamortalitybecauseindividual

relocated bears are no longer part of the population. Mortality occasionallyresults fromactions

of private citizens for self-defense or defense of others.

IdentifySources of Indirect Mortality. (V132)

Sources of indirect mortality are those actions that bring bears and people into conflict such as

road use, land development, and recreation. These actions include, but are not limited to, road

construction, livestock grazing operations, timber harvest mining, water development, and

energy exploration! development, recreation, and human development of conflicting enterprises, (subdivisions, dog kennels, fish farms, pig farms, boneyards, garbage dumps, etc.).

Determine Effects of Human Activities on Bears and Bear Habitat, and Incorporate the Results

into Management Plans and Decisions on Human Activities. (V133)

Complete research to document the effects of activitiessuch as timber harvest, road use, oil and

gas exploration, and recreation on behavior, physiological condition, population distribution,

density, food habits, home range, reproduction,survivorship, and denning activities of grizzly

bears. Revise the Guidelines as necessary as thisinformation is obtained.

Redress Population Limiting Factors. (Y2)

Develop ways to minimize actions that limit populations within and surrounding the recovery zone.

Continue State and cooperative interagency efforts to manage mortality.

Manage Sources of Direct Mortality. (V21)

The recommended annual unmanaged human-induced grizzly bear mortality goal, within and

surrounding the recovery zone,forexpediting species recovery is zero. Thismortality goal will not be

achieved because some level of human-bear conflict isinevitable within the ecosystem. Reaching the

recovery goal will be facilitated if all human-caused mortality within and outside the recovery zone

does not exceed 4 percent of the population estimate based on the most recent 3-year sum of

observations of females with cubs, and no more than 30 percent of this mortality limit isfemale. This

level of human-causedmortality is below the theoretical tolerance limits of 6 percent human-caused

Recovery I Part Three • 47
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

mortality thatis sustainablein agrizzly population havingthe characteristics of those in the lower 48

States (see Y1. above).

Known, human-causedmortalitiesin excess of the level sustainable atagiven number of unduplicated

females with cubs could result in population dedine, while mortalities below thislevel would likely

result in population increase. As the grizzly population increases, the numberof sustainableknown

human-inducedmortalities alsoincreases. The knownnumber of females withcubsisused to calculate

whatis believed to be aminimumpopulation estimate;therefore,the projected numberof sustainable

mortalities (less than 4 percent of this minimum population)is conservative.

Reduce Illegal Killing. (V211)

Use all methods possible to minimize illegal kills.

Coordinate State, Federal, and Tribal Law Enforcement Efforts. (Y21 11)

Provide aconcertedlawenforcement effort by designating aspecially trained lawenforcement

teamcoordinatedbytheU.S. FishandWildlifeServicetominimize theillegal killof grizzlybeam.

One ormore personsrepresenting the U.S. FishandWildlife Service,NationalParkService, U.S.

Forest Service, States of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho should be appointed. Each member

should receive specializedtraining towork on illegal killsof grizzly bears. The team should be

trained initially by the IGBST andother biologistsin such matters as distribution, home ranges

of identifiable bears, movements by season, mating hakits, current location of radio-marked

bears and other biological informationthat may be helpful to the team. Representatives from

the U.S. ForestServiceandBureauof LandManagementshouldbeencouragedtoattendinorder

to assist more ably in gatheringfield evidence.

All incidents of grizzly bear kills, suspectedillegal activities, and rumors of killsshould be

communicatedbetweenthe enforcement team, their respective agencies, andthe IGBST on

a daily basis or as often as is practical.

The Enforcement Team Leader should keep all members of the enforcement team and the

IGBST informed, and should organize coordinationmeetings as needed. Special emphasis

should be directed atcovert operations that maybe operating commercially.

The EnforcementTeam should operate through an interstate, interagency agreement under

the direction of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

It isimperative that the groupleader establish aline of communication and rapportwith all

field personnel, field office staff, andlocal law enforcementagenciessothat he!shemaybe

notified immediately of a violation or threat of aviolation.

Public assistance should be solicited in reporting suspectedor knownillegal kills. Persons

furnishing information that leadsto a finding of civil violation or a conviction of acriminal

violation of 50 CFR17.40 regarding grizzly bears, can be rewardedup to onehalf of the fine

or civil penalty.

States having tollfree numbersforreporting violations or forinformation should publicize

their numbers as means of reporting grizzly problems and grizzly bear deaths.

48 • Part Three I Recovery
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Reduce Illegal Killing by Big Game Hunters and Mistaken Identity Killing by BlackBear Hunters.

(Y21 12)

The State conservation agenciesshould continue to make information about handling and

storing game available to big game hunters, to reduce the likelihood of the carcass being

claimedby agrizzly. Information should continueto be provided to all blackbearhunters

to assistthem in distinguishingbetweenblackandgrizzlybears. Stateagenciesshould issue

special warnings to blackbearhunters using areasfrequented by grizzlybears. Black bear

hunting regulations should be modified as appropriate to reduce or eliminate areas of

significant conflictsor time periods of conflict. Special attentionshouldbe given to evaluate

and eliminate as necessary bear baiting in recovery zones.

Investigate and Prosecute Illegal Killing ofGrizzly Bears. (Y2113)

The special enforcement team should investigate accidental grizzly bear kills and recommend prosecution when appropriate.

Reduce Accidental Deaths. (Y21 14)

Minimize those activitiesthat result in attraction of bearsto sites of conffict andmanagement

mistakes that might result in losses.

Increase Efforts to Clean up CarrIon and Other Attractants In Association with Roads, Human

Habitation, and Developed Areaswithin Recovery Zones. (Y21 141)

All agenciesshould evaluateandimprovewarning signs along highways androadsin

high-usegrizzlybearareas. All agencies should increase efforts to clean up carrion and

other attractants along highways andotherrouteswithin occupiedgrizzly bearrange.

Reduce Losses Due to Mishandling ofBears During Research and Management Actions through

Development of a Bear Handling Manual. (Y21142)

To reduce losses due tomishandling of bears, (e.g., an overdose of immobilizing drugs

or improper handling), only experienced personnel certified by a sponsoring unit

havingthe required permits and knowledge in the applicationof capture techniques,

immobilizing drugs, transportation of drugged animals, and scientific data collection

should handle grizzly bears. Only the safest, most effective drugs available should be

used. A detailed manual for trapping, immobilizing, transporting, and handling

grizzly bears has been prepared for use by all agencies as a training and reference

manual.

Reduce Losses Due to Predator and Rodent Control. (Y21143)

Agenciesresponsible for licensing, conducting, or in anyway overseeing predator or

rodent damage control programs using toxic substances in occupied grizzly bear

habitatshould use the most selective (but effective) rodenticide available, and use it in

lowest effective dosage. Poisonbait should be used only under the onsite supervision

of a certified applicator. Poisoning within grizzly bear habitatshould be delayed as

long as possible into July to minimize the potential for grizzly bears to consume

poisoned rodents or tait.

Recovery I Part Three • 49
Yeflowstone GrIzzly Bear Recovery Zone

Agencycontrolon Federallandsshould be in accordancewith 50 CFR17.40. For grizzly

bearsinvolvedin livestockconflicts, animaldamage control officersshould followthe

Guidelines and other interagency agreements.

Ensure that Control of Nuisance Bears is Accomplished According to 50 CFR 17.40 and the

Guidelines. (Y21 144)

All management controlactionsshouldbe carriedout accordingto theGuidelines. The

only legal citizen control of a grizzly bear isthat related to self-defense or defense of

others. The law enforcement team should carefully investigate every case of grizzly

bear mortality alleged to be self-defense or defense of others.

Reduce Losses by Developing and Implementing Public Education and Awareness Programs.

(Y21145)

Accidental mortalities and nuisance bear mortalities are often the result of lack of

information about the effects of humanbehavioron grizzly bears such assanitationin

residential areas and back-country areas as well as the behavior of back-country

visitors. Agenciesshould cooperate in the development and implementation of public

education programs.

Appoint a Grizzly BearMortality Coordinator. (V212)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has appointed an employee of MDFWP as grizzly bear

mortality coordinator to tabulate annual bear mortality for this ecosystem and ensure that all

cooperating agencies and the public have current mortality data. The coordinator should

maintain key contacts with all agenciesand keep detailed records of all conditions surrounding

each grizzly beardeath. Astandard form, meeting the needs of all agencies, should be prepared.

Identify and Reduce Sources of Indirect Mortality. (V22)

Ongoing human actionsin grizzly habitat contribute to bear-humanconfficts that often result in bear

deaths. Management of these activities in consideration of the needs of bears will reduce indirect

mortality.

Make Domestic Livestock Grazing Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Requirements. (V221)

Encourage consideration of grizzly habitat needsregarding grazing on State and private lands.

On Federallandsthe Guidelines should be applied tomake grazing operations compatiblewith

grizzly bearspacial and seasonal habitatrequirements. On State and private lands, agenciesand

field personnel of agenciesinvolvedin grizzly bearmanagement should communicate the intent

of the Guidelines as a cooperative extension effort.

Make Timber Harvest and Road Building Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Requirements.

(V222)

Strongly encourage consideration of grizzly habitat needs relating to timber harvest and road

building on State andprivate lands. On Federallands, theGuidelinesshouldbe applied, androad

density guidelinesshould be phased in to maketimber operations compatible with grizzly bear

spacial and habitat requirements. On State and private lands, agencies and field personnel of

agenciesinvolvedin grizzly bear managementshould communicate the intent of theGuidelines

as a cooperative extension effort.

50 • Part Three I Recovery
Yeflowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Make Mining and Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Compatible with Grizzly Bear

Habitat Requirements. (V223)

Encourage consideration of grizzly habitat needs and road densityguidelinesrelatingto mining

and oil and gas exploration on State and private lands. On Federallands, theGuidelines should

be applied and road density guidelines phased in to make mining and energy operations

compatible with grizzly bear spacial and habitat requirements. On State and private lands,

agenciesand field personnel of agencies involvedin grizzly bear managementshould communicate the intent of the Guidelines and road density guidelines as a cooperative extension effort.

Make Recreation on Federal Lands Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Needs. (V224)

On Federallands, the Guidelinesshould be appliedand roaddensity guidelinesshould bephased

in to makerecreation activities compatible with grizzly bearspacial and habitat requirements.

Coordinate with State and County Governments to Make Land Development and Land Use

Decisions within the Recovery Zones Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Needs. (V225)

Landmanagement agencies, State regulatory agencies, countycommissioner, and countyzoning

boards should be encouraged to give consideration to the needs of grizzly bears in any actions

requiring their approval. When homes, summerhomes, cabins,camps,farm operations, etc., with

attendant dog kennels, pigfarms,garbage dumps, andlivestockcarcassdisposalsites are allowed

to invade the habitat occupied by grizzly bears, they will directly or indirectly effectively reduce

the space andhabitat necessary forthe bears survival. For private lands not subject to the above

restrictions,wildlife managersshould giveconsideration to purchase,lease,or easementifhabitat

components are necessary to survival of the species.

Monitor the Cumulative Effects of ManagementActions In Grizzly Bear Habitat. (V226)

Determine the cumulativeeffects of all or anycombination of the actions described above (Y221-

Y225) that may adversely impact grizzly bears through application of the cumulative effects

model on an ongoing basis. Past adverse impacts on the bears and their habitat must be amajor

consideration in the evaluationof anynew action. Newactions must be evaluated on a regional

basisto avoid the cumulative effects of several well planned individual actions impacting bears

fromtoo many directionssimultaneously. Historical recordsindicatethat atsome pointin time,

probably associated with the degree of stress, grizzly bears will no longer use certain portions of

their former range; therefore, each new action hasthe potential of being “the last straw,” fromthe

standpoint of the bear, and every effort must be made to evaluateeach new action with respect

to former and future actions.

Coordinate, Monitor, and Report Activities Relating to Redressing Population Limiting

Factors and Monitor Compliance with the Recovery Plan. (Y23)

This should be accomplished through the activities of the Coordinator and the managementsubcommittees of the IGBC. Actionsshould be takenby the management committees as necessaryto address

needs and to ensure implementation of the recovery planand the application of the Guidelines.

Recovery I Part Three • 51
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Determine the Habitat and Space Required for theAchievement of the Grizzly Bear

Population Goal. (Y3)

Careful definitionof the recovery zones will allowagenciesandthe public to knowwheregrizzly bears and

grizzly habitat will be managed. Information on range and the biology of bears as well as the nature and

quality of habitatis necessaryto ensure that habitatisproperlymanaged andthatthe habitatdelineated has

sufficient quality and quantity to support a viable population.

Define the Recovery Zone within which the Grizzly Bear will be Managed. (V31)

The recovery zone for the Yellowstone ecosystem was delineated by members of the YGBE Management Subcommitteeof the IGBC (fig. 5). The recoveryzone wasdefinedonthe basis of the best available

information on bearandbear habitatdistribution and needs foraviable,well distributed population.

Present boundaries will be defined as the YGBE and should be corrected and revised as new data

become available.

Changes in the recovery zone lines can be made by a committee appointed by the ecosystem

managementsubcommittee consistingof representatives of the State wildlife agency,the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, and the involvedland management agencies. Additions to the recovery zone line

require that a significant area ofseasonally importanthabitatexist outside the existingrecovery zone

line thatis used by grizzly bearsthatliveprimarily within the recovery zone. The area tobe added must

have significant value to the survival of the bears within the recovery zone. Changesin the recovery

zone lines should be made using the bestbiological information available.

Itisrecognized that grizzly bears will occur outsidethe recovery zone linesand thatthe merepresence

of bears outside the recovery zone line is not sufficient reason for changing the line. The area to be

added must be of significant biological value to bears residing inside the line. These values must be

demonstrated by habitat mapping and bearmovement data. Any changesto the recovery zoneline

should be approved by the ecosystem management subcommittee and the IGBC and should be

appended to the recovery plan. Changesin the line should be finalized and effective upon approval

by the IGBC.

Identify Agency Management Stratifications withinthe Recovery Zone Including the Delineation

of BMU’s and Management Situations 1,11, or Ill as Defined in the Guidelines. (Y32)

The BMU’s should be defined on the basis of units suitable for application of the CEA. Management

situations should be defined according to the Guidelines. Correct delineation of the management

situation areas within the recovery zone as necessary as new information becomes available.

Conduct Research to Determine the Extent of Grizzly Bear Range. (V33)

This research is ongoing by the IGBST and cooperating agencies.

Conduct Research to Determine Habitat Use, Food Habits, Home Range Size, and Seasonal

Habitat Preference, and Incorporate into Habitat Management Programs. (Y34)

These data should be used to ensure that habitat values are availablewithin the grizzly bearrecovery

zone and that ongoing management actions do not significantly degrade these habitat values.

Information on behavior, physiological condition, population distribution, density, food habits, home

52 • Part Three / Recovery
Yellowstone GrIzzly Bear Recovery Zone

range,reproduction, survivorship,and denning activitieshas beengatheredsince 1975 by the IGBST,

and prior to that time by the Craighead research team. These data are presented in peer-reviewed

journals and in the annual reports of the IGBST. Additional research is carried out by State, private,

and university cooperators.

Itis crucialthatthisinformationon the grizzly bears’ biological requirements becorrelatedwithhabitat

conditions. Of particular relevance are habitat factorsrelating to ecosystem dynamicsthatmay limit

the range or food availability of bears. These factors can include climate change, fire effects, andplant

phenology, habitat availability changes, and growth patterns of major food species. These factors are

particularlyimportant in the YGBEbecause the grizzly population there is an island population. The

immediate effects ofhabitat dynamicsmaybe more severe thanin populationsthat are contiguous with

larger areas of habitat. Detailed information on these factorsshould be gathered as soon as possible

and annual recording of patterns should be initiated in orderto recognize habitat dynamics changes

as they might occur. This research and habitat evaluation should be undertaken by the IGBST and

cooperating agencies. Results should be used by management agenciesto judge the effectiveness of

management policies. Policiesshould be adjustedas necessarywhen research demonstrates the need

to do so. One area ofspecial concernis the effect of fire management in grizzly bearhabitat. Natural

fires can improve grizzly bear habitat by increasing the quality and quantity of food sources. Fire

suppression can reduce food availability and reduce habitat quality.

Conduct Research to Determine the Relationship Between Habitat Values, Physiological

Condition of Bears, and the Ability of the Habitat to Sustain a Population Density Necessary

to Achieve Viable Population Size. (V35)

Information onphysiological condition of grizzlybears hasbeengatheredsince 1975by the IGBST, and

priorto thattime by theCraighead researchteam. These dataare presented in referencedjournals and

in the annualreports of the IGBST. Additional research is carried out by State, private, and university

cooperators. This researchandhabitat evaluationshould be undertakenbythe IGBSTand cooperating

agencies. Results should be used by management agenciesto judge the effectiveness of management

policies. Policies should be adjustedas necessary when research demonstratesthe need to do so.

Conduct Research to Determine the Effects of Various Road Densities on Grizzly Bear Habitat

Use and Human•caused Bear Mortality. (V36)

This research is being conducted by cooperating agencies. Results should be used by management

agenciesto judge the effectiveness of management policies. Policies should be adjusted as necessary

when research demonstrates the need to do so.

Conduct Research on the Effects.of Habitat Fragmentation Caused by Human Activities, such

as Modification of Cover Type, Road Building, and Human Residences, in order to Assess the

Possibility of Linkage between Grizzly Bear Ecosystems and between Habitat Tracts within

Ecosystems. (V37)

This research is being conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with various

Federal andStatelandmanagement agencies,localgovernments, andthe public. Resultsmaybe useful

to developing long-term cooperative land management planning to include both public and private

sectors.

Recovery I Part Three • 53
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Evaluate the Applicability of PopulationViability Analyses (PVA)to GrizzlyBear Recovery. (V38)

The PVA are based on theoretical biological models of a species reproduction, survival, and genetic

interchange and stability through time. The PVA studieshavebeen utilized sometimes in identifying

possible population numbersthatmay contribute to long-term species survival. The applicability of

aPVA studyto grizzly bear recovery should be evaluated.

Monitor Populations and Habitats. (Y4)

Population monitoringis necessary to determinate the status of the population and to assessthe success of

conservation efforts associated with recovery. An increasing population validates ongoing management

efforts, while a decreasing population indicates a failure to address problems facing the population.

Monitor Populations Before, During, and After Recovery. (V41)

Develop and apply techniques to ensure the population is carefully monitored.

Develop and Conduct an Intensive Monitoring System to Measure theAnnual Number of

Females with Cubs, Family Groups, and Number of Human-caused Mortalities. (V411)

The method is detailed in Y11 and Y111.

Develop a System of Responsibilities to Collate, Analyze, and Report Annual Information on

Population Data. (V412)

The system is detailedin Y112.

Standardize Observation Report Forms and Methods, and Develop Training Methods for all

Persons Involved in Reporting Sightings of Females with Cubs and Family Groups. (V413)

Reporting systemdetailed inY112. Training methods should involve identification materials to

enable all individualsinvolvedto be able to identify the bearspeciesseen or to be able to report

unknown species. Trainingmethods should be distributed to all agency reporting personnel and

shouldbe formally presented in training sessionsto seasonal andstaff personnel at the beginning

of each year in orderto ensure quality observation data.

Monitor Relocated Bears in Order to Assess the Successof NuIsance Bear Management.

(V414)

Efforts to monitor relocated bears should continue in the YGBE.

Monitor Habitats Before, During, and After Recovery. (V42)

Develop and apply techniques to ensure the habitat is carefully monitored.

Develop and Apply the CEAProcess to Allow Monitoring of Effects of ManagementActions

over a Large Geographic Area of Habitat. (V421)

The CEA should be completed,thoroughly evaluated,andrefined. If applicable,it can be applied

to assistinjudgingthe suitability of ongoing management actions. Development of CEA requires

five phases: (1) data base compilation, (2) software development, (3) testing/validation, (4)

development of mortality submodel, and (5) development of thresholds. Biologists’ interpretation of data andoutput shouldbe a continualpart of theCEA. The CEA is currently atthe testing!

54 • Part Three I Recovery
Yellowstone GrIzzly Bear Recovery Zone

validation stagewheredatabases are complete. Results of CEA testing andvalidation in theYGBE

will facilitate its use in other grizzly bear ecosystems.

Complete Habitat Mapping of the Recovery Zone and Digitize these Data sothey are Available

for use by the CEA. (V422)

Habitatmapping should be standardizedand completedin a format compatible with the CEA.

Updating of these habitat maps should be programmed every 5 years, or as necessary.

Establish a Threshold of Minimal Habitat Values to be Maintained within each CEAAnalysis

Unit in orderto Ensure that Sufficient Habitat isAvailable to Support aViable Population.

(V423)

The thresholdvalue or series of values are the benchmarks used in conjunction with theCEA to

judge that ongoing actions in grizzly habitat have not degraded the valueand/or availability of

the habitat to bears. The objective of determining thresholds is not to establish and maintain

minimal values, but to establish a measure of the level of ongoing change in the habitat.

Management should attempt to manage habitatabove thresholdvalues. Maintenance of habitat

values above the threshold values allows greater environmental flexibility for bears and will

benefit recovery.

Threshold values are unknownatthistime. Development of the thresholdvalues should bebased

on the best availablebiological data on the habitat needs and biology of the grizzly bear. Such

values should be based on the assumption that environmental diversity is necessary for bear

survival, especiallyin years of food shortage dueto environmentalconditions (i.e.,years of berry

crop failure or pinenut crop failure).

Apply CEAto Each BMU to Ensure Habitat Quality is Sufficient for Maintenance of aViable

Population and to Monitor Changes in Habitat as a Result of Human Activity. (V424)

As CEA becomes applicable in the YGBE, it should be applied every 5 years to each BMU to

monitor changes in habitat quality and availability as a result of human activities and natural

processes such as fire and plant succession. Deviations below the desired threshold level will

require reanalysis of humanactivities in the BMU to ensure reattainment of the threshold level.

Primary responsibility for CEA application lies with the ecosystem data base coordinator.

Report Activities Successfully Used to Manage Habitat. (V425)

This should be completedas part of the ongoing business of themanagement agencies,the YGBE

Management Subcommittee, and the Recovery Coordinator.

Develop aConservation Strategy to Outline Habitat and Population Monitoring that will

Continue in Force after Recovery. (V426)

Development of a conservation strategyis underway for the YGBE. This conservation strategy

should detail the habitat and population monitoring structures inthe YGBE thatwill be in place

after removal of the speciesfrom the threatened species list. The conservation strategy should

ensure that proper habitat and population monitoring will remain in place to ensure that the

species will remain recovered without protection under the Act. The conservation strategy

should be finalized and signed by all agencies priorto anyconsideration of delistingthe species.

Its existence should demonstratethe existenceof adequate regulatory mechanisms asrequiredby

section 4(b) of the Act.

Recovery I Part Three • 55
Yellowstone GrIzzly Bear Recovery Zone

Manage Populations and Habitat. (Y5)

Apply the best management techniques to ensure recovered populations.

Manage Populations and Habitats Prior to Recovery on Federal Lands. (V51)

Refine Procedures for Relocating or Aversively Conditioning Nuisance Grizzly Bears. (V511)

Develop and coordinate proceduresto expedite the relocationof nuisance bears and reviewand

update interagency agreements. Relocate bears within 24 hours and continue search for new

release areas. Research and develop methods to deal with problem bears and test and develop

aversive conditioningof bears, if possible. Evaluate the effects of relocated nuisance bears on

resident bears in relocation areas. Refine the Guidelines as necessary.

Develop and Test Procedures to Relocate Bears between Areas for Demographic or Genetic

Purposes. (V512)

Develop and coordinate interagency agreements and procedures for the introduction of one

grizzly bear into the breedingpopulation in theYellowstone area every 10 years formaintenance

of genetic diversity. This procedure is a proactive strategyto minimize the possibility of loss of

genetic diversity in this ecosystem. The time interval of every 10 years is based on computer

simulationsthat indicatethat addingone bearevery generation (10 yearsfor grizzly bears) to the

breedingpopulation of theYGBEwill limitthe loss of geneticdiversity. However, more than one

bear mayneed to be transplantedevery 10 years. Using nuisancebears for thispurpose should

not be permitted. Ecosystemswith larger populationsthat are not isolated breedingunitsshould

be sourcesofsuitable bears. Responsibility forthiseffort lies with theCoordinator and the IGBST

in cooperation with cooperatingState and Federal agencies and universities.

Apply Interagency Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines Prior to Recovery that Maintain or

Enhance Habitats. (V513)

By applying the Guidelines, agencies should ensure thatland use activities are conducted in a

manner that is compatible with grizzly bear requirements for space and habitat and that

minimizesthe potentialforhuman/bear conflicts. Ensure thatroad densityguidelines arephased

within grizzly bear habitat.

Manage Populations and Habitats on Private and State Lands. (Y52)

Develop and apply management guidelines prior to recovery that maintain or enhance habitats.

Recommend land use activities compatible with grizzly bear requirements for space and habitat;

minimize potentialforhuman/bear conflicts. Implement cooperativeefforts withState landsagencies

andprivate landownersto incorporate standards similarto theGuidelines androad density guidelines

in orderto ensure thatmanagement actions will be sensitive to grizzly bearhabitatneeds. Cooperative

effortsbetween county, State, and Federal land management agencies will facilitate this.

56 • Part Three I Recovery
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Develop and Implement a Conservation Strategy for each Ecosystem that Outlines all Habitat

and Population Regulatory Mechanisms in Force after Recovery. (V53)

Demonstrate the existence of adequate regulatory mechanisms after recovery. Provide guidelinesfor

the continuation of habitatand population management upon recovery of the grizzly bearpopulation

in the ecosystemthrough the creation ofaYGBE ConservationStrategy. This strategypresentlyisbeing

developed for the YGBE. This conservation strategy should detail the habitat and population

management structures in the YGBE that will be in place after removal of the species from the

threatened specieslist in this ecosystem. The conservation strategyshould ensure that properhabitat

and population management will remain in place to ensure that the species will remain recovered

without protection under the Act. The conservation strategy should be finalized and signed by all

agenciespriorto consideration of delisting the species. Its existence should demonstratethe existence

of adequate regulatory mechanisms as required by section 4(b) of the Act.

Develop and Initiate Appropriate Information and Education Programs. (Y6)

Managing human-induced mortalities is a major factor in effecting the recovery of the grizzly bear.

Therefore, it iscrucialto therecovery effort thatthe public understand reasonsforactionsin orderto generate

favorable ortolerant attitudestoward the bear. The IGBC has appointed an informationandeducation(I&E)

subcommittee to develop educationprograms and disseminateinformation. Private conservation organizations interested in the recovery of grizzly bears could be of assistance by including appropriate

information in their publications and news releases.

Evaluate Public Attitudes toward Grizzly Bear Management, HabitatProtection and

Maintenance, Land Use Restrictions, Mitigating Measures, Relocation of Bears, Hunting,

Nuisance Bear Control Actions, and HabitatAcquisition or Easement. (Y61)

Public attitudes are amajorpart of the successorfailureof grizzly bearrecovery efforts. Understanding

of these attitudes and the basis forpublic sentimentis important. Carefully designed research surveys

by qualified scientists experienced in such sampling should be initiated. The managementsubcommittee members should formulate the basic questions andattitudes of interest. The data will be usefulin

designing public outreachprograms to foster public support for recovery programs.

Formulate Ways to Improve Public Attitudes about Grizzly Bears and the Grizzly Bear

Recovery Program. (V62)

Agencies should use the data on public attitudesto formulatepublic relations andI&E programsthrough

the respective I&E offices of each agency and the I&E subcommittee of the IGBC. Agencies havingthe

authority andresponsibility for grizzly bearcontrol actions should institute and carry out I&E programs

to inform citizens having problems.with grizzly bears of the appropriate procedures and contacts for

assistance.

Implement the Recovery Plan through Appointment of a Recovery Coordinator. (Y7)

The Service has appointed a Recovery Coordinator to collate all relevant information on grizzly bears and to

coordinate andstimulate complianceandactiontoimplement the recoveryplan. TheCoordinatorshould submit

progress reports andconduct workshops andmeetings as necessary. This position providesacentralfocusfor

the accumulation, exchange, anddissemination ofinformation,andacentralpointformulti-agency coordination

that should aid in the judicious use of resources andmaterially enhance the recovery effort.

Recovery I Part Three • 57
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Revise Appropriate Federal and State Regulations to Reflect Current Situations and Initiate

International Cooperation. (Y8)

Ensure consistent, up-to-date regulationsand maintaininternational cooperationandcommunication with

all other countries wherebrown bears are being managed.

Revise Federal and State Regulations as Necessary. (Y81)

Federal and State regulations should be periodically revised to ensure regulatory adequacy. The

Coordinator should initiate revision of Federal regulationsthrough the Federal Register and Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR). Federal regulationsthat mayneed periodic revision include special rules

codified in the CFR and national forest and national park regulations, such as those regarding

sanitation. The Coordinator should also assist States in regulation revisions as necessary. State

regulations that may need periodic revision include regulations on the taking of bears and management of hunting. Hunting of grizzly bears should be evaluated as a management tool to relieve

population pressureswhere such pressures are demonstrated.

Coordinate and Exchange Information and Expertise with Canada and other Countries

Concerning Bear Research and Management. (V82)

This will increase information exchange of state-of-the-art bear research and management, will

promote international cooperation, andimprovemanagement andrecovery efforts. All IGBC member

agencies and the Coordinator should exchange information and expertise with Canada and other

countries managing bears concerning recovery activities. This exchange will promote international

cooperationandimprovemanagement and recovery efforts. International cooperationisimportantto

the success of the grizzly bear recovery effort.

Internationalcommunication on bears andbear management is necessaryto the success of the recovery

effort. Many of the management problems and considerations facing the threatened grizzly bears in

theUnited States, such asinsularpopulations, smallpopulation size,conflictswith timber harvest and

livestockgrazing,genetic concerns relatingto smallpopulation size,movement ofbears fromonearea

to another, management of hunting, and public attitudes, are alsofacing many of the otherspecies of

bears in Europe and Asia. Sharing of information on management approaches and techniques will

facilitate recovery in the UnitedStates as wellas assisting managers andresearchers in other countries.

The RecoveryCoordinatorshouldfacilitate cooperationandinternational communication andprovide

information gained to managers and researchers as necessary.

58 • Part Three I Recovery

Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Subgoal: For the Northern Continental Divide Grizzly BearRecovery Zone (NCDE), 10females

with cubs inside Glacier National Park (GNP) and 12 females with cubs outside GNP over a

running 6-year average both inside the recovery zone and within a 10 mile area immediately

surrounding the recoveryzone, excludingCanada; 21 of23BMU’soccupiedbyfemales withyoung

from a running 6-yearsum ofobservations with no two adjacentBMU’s unoccupied; and known,

human-caused mortality not to exceed 4 percent of the population estimates based on the most

recent 3-year sum offemales with cubs. Furthermore, no more than 30 percent of this 4 percent

mortality limit shall be females. These mortality limits cannot be exceeded during any 2

consecutive years for recovery to be achieved. Furthermore, recovery in the NCDE cannot be

achieved without occupancy in the Mission Mountains portion of this ecosystem.

Establish the Population Objective for Recovery and Identify Limiting Factors. (Ni)

The population objective for the NCDE was based on data accumulated since 1975 on food habits,

distribution, bear/human conflicts, home range, and density. Consideration of limitingfactorsincluded

information on annual fluctuation in food sources, adult female survivorship, levels of human-induced

mortality, and ongoing confficts in the ecosystem, as wellas demographic concerns. The goals detailedin

this chapter are based on the best available scientific information on the population, and are believed

necessary forthe population to be viable and self-sustaining in this ecosystem. These goals will be revised

as necessary or as new information becomes available.

Recovery targetsfortheNCDE grizzly bearrecovery zonewere developed usingthe followingassumptions

and data:

(1) Recovery of the NCDE population depends uponverification thatthe population meetsthe criteria for

a recovered population. Arecovered population is definedas onethat (a) can sustain the existinglevel

of known andunknown, unreported, human-caused mortality that existsin theNCDE, and (b)is well

distributed throughout the recovery zone in the NCDE.

(2) The target for the minimum number of unduplicated females with cubs on a running 6-year average

is 12 outsideof GNP and10 inside the GNP. Verified evidence of females with cubs within the recovery

zone and within a10 mile area immediately surrounding the recovery zone, excluding Canada,willbe

included. Both targets must be attained to meet recovery objectives. The following facts and

assumptions about the grizzly bear population in the NCDE were used to determine the targets:

(a) A running 6-year average of unduplicated females with cubs is based on a 3-year reproductive

cycle and will allow atleast 2 years when each adult femalealive can be reported with cubs. A

running 6-year tally will stabilize the average and make it less sensitive to changes in annual

reporting levels and sightability.

(b) On average, 33 percent of adult (at least 5 years old) females will be with cubs each year. This is

based on an average 3-year reproductive interval for adult females. The 6-year average number

offemales with cubs can bemultiplied by threeto estimate theminimum numberofadult females

in the population.

Recovery I Part Three • 61
Northern Continental DIvide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

(c) The reporting efficiencyfor females with cubsis 60 percent. Thus,of all females with cubs in the

NCDE in a given year, on average 60 percent will be detected/seen and reported (based on

averagereporting of femaleson theRockyMountainFront, Montana,Auneand Kasworm1989).

Thisisaconservative estimate of females with cubs. Because of the forested nature of much ofthe

NCDE, the reporting efficiency is most likely lower than 60 percent. Therefore, the calculated

minimum number of females with cubs will underestimate the actual number. This process is

designed to err on the side of the bear.

(d) The grizzly population in the NCDEis assumed to be 50 percent adults and 50 percent subadults

(GrizzlyBear Compendium, 1987, pp. 47-59).

(e) The sexratio of both adults and subadultsis assumed to be 1:1 (GrizzlyBear Compendium,1987,

pp. 47-59).

(f) The proportion of adult females in the population is similar to that in the Yellowstone area at

approximately28.40 percent(Knight etal. 1988, AppendixC, andKnight etal. 1993,AppendixD).

The target of 12 unduplicated females with cubs outsideGNPissufficient to indicate aminimum

population of atleast 211 bears (usingmethodof Knight etal. 1988) although itisrecognized that

bears do move between GNP and the rest of the NCDE:

12 females with cubs seen divided by 0.6 (sightability correction factor) = 20 total females with

cubs; 20x3 = 6OadultfemalesoutsideGNP; 60 dividedby0.2840 (the assumed proportion of adult

females in population) = a minimum of 211 grizzly bears outside GNP.

The target of 10 unduplicated females withcubs inside GNP indicatesthat the population inGNP

contains at least 180 bears:

10 females with cubs seen divided by 0.6 (sightability correction factor) = 17 total females with

cubs; 17 x 3 = 51 adult females in GNP; and 51 divided by 0.2840 (assumed proportion of adult

females in population) = a minimum of 180 grizzly bears inside GNP.

The combined targets of unduplicated females with cubs in the NCDE both inside and outside

GNP would indicate aminimum population of at least 391 grizzlies:

211 + 180 = 391 grizzly bears

(3) Human-caused grizzly mortalities will continue atsome long-termrate due to inevitable interactions

betweenbears and people throughout the 9,600mi2 (24,864kin2) ecosystem. These mortalitylevels are

not likely to decline significantly and will probably increase as the population increases and bearhuman interactions increase.

Annual human-caused grizzly bear mortality varies (Dood et al. 1986,Dood and Pac 1988, Pac and

Dood 1989, 1992). However, the average annual nonhunting mortality has remained almost constant

since 1975, indicating that these kills are not likely to decline from present levels despite further

intensive management.

(4) Unknown, unreported, human-caused mortality occurs each year atsome level.

62 • Part Three I Recovery
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

(5) Known, human-caused, nonhunting mortality for grizzly bearsin theNCDE averaged ninebears per

year from 1987-1992 (Dood et al. 1986,Dood and Pac 1988, Pac and Dood 1989, 1992, GNP, unpubl.

data). Totalhuman-caused mortality averaged11 bears peryear. Mosthuman-causedmortalityoccurs

outside GNP (Dood etal. 1986,Dood andPac 1988,PacandDood 1989,1992). The average number of

human-caused mortalities inside GNP was 0.56 per year from 1974 to 1991 (GNP, unpublished data).

The following table summarizes all known, human-caused, grizzly mortalities, including hunting,

during the past 6 years:

Year Known Human-Caused Mortality

All bears All females Adult females

1987 15 9

1988 5 1

1989 14 4

1990 12 5 2

1991 9 7 0

1992 13 8 3

TOTAL 68 34 5 (3 Year Sum)

6-Year Average 11 /YEAR 6 /YEAR

In 1986, grizzly bear hunting quotas for the NCDE were revised to reflect a more conservative

management program. In 1991, grizzly bear hunting was suspended. Hunting mortality averaged

2.5 grizzlies annually from 1986 to 1991:

Date Hunting Kills Non-Hunting Kills

1975-1985 10.2/yr 8.4/yr

1986-1991 2.5/yr 8.5/yr

(6) There is a relationshipbetweenthe sustainable human-causedmortality level, recruitmentof animals

into the population, and the number of unduplicated females with cubs. Therefore, the estimate of

number of females with cubs is importantto managing mortality.

(7) Calculation of an annual mortality limit is based on the more conservative number of adult females

known to be alive for the past 3 years. The following NUDEminimum population estimate for 1992

is calculated using the assumptions listed above (items 2c-2f) and methods from Knight et al. (1988,

Appendix C):

The latest minimum number of known adult females in the NCDE is the sum of the number of

unduplicated females with cubs seen both outside and within GNP during 1990-1992:14 +21 + 22=

57, minus 5 adult female mortalities known to have occurred during this 3-year period, yielding 52

adult females alive as ofJanuary 1992. This number can then be dividedby the 60 percent sightability

factorto equala minimum number of 87 adult females alive in the population as of fall of 1992.

Recovery/PartThree • 63
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

This number can be used to estimate the minimum population size for 1993 using the method from

Knight et al. (1988, AppendixC):

Total population 87 adult females present

proportion adult femalesin population

The minimum calculated population is 87 =306 grizzly bears

.2840

(8) The maximum human-caused mortality level that can be sustained without population decline by a

grizzly bear population with the above-assumed characteristics is 6 percent when no more than

30 percent of these mortalities are females (Harris 1984).

(9) The present minimumpopulation estimate is 306 bears (item 7 above) that could sustain a maximum

human-caused mortality level of 6 percent or:

306 x 0.06 = 18 human-caused bear mortalities

(10) In orderto facilitate recovery of the population, and to allow for both errorin minimum population

estimatesand forunknownunreported mortality, the maximumknownhuman-causedmortality limit

fortheNCDEpopulation isset at4 percent of the population estimatebased on mostrecent 3-yearsum

of females with cubs. Nomore than30 percent of thismortality limitmaybe females. The actual known

human-causedmortality limitwill be set each yearby calculating the minimum population estimate

for the year and setting the limit for that year at 4 percent of thisaverage.

The lead for completion of these annual calculations shall be the Coordinator of the U.S. Fish and

WildlifeService working in cooperationwith other agencies. Managementshould seek to ensure that

known, human-caused mortality does not exceed this limit. In order to account for changes in

population size, the mortality limit will be calculated annually using the most recent 3-year sum of

females with cubs as described in item 7 (above). This mortality level is conservative because

(a) it is applied to aminimum population estimate thatis based on the number of females with cubs

seen in theNCDE, corrected by a conservative sightability factor(asdetailedNi). Itisrecognized

that the actual population size is higher than the minimum estimate; and

(b) according to Harris (1985), a grizzly bear population can sustain 6 percent human-caused

mortality without experiencinga decline in that population.

For the present NCDE population estimate within and outside GNP of 306 bears, a 4 percent limit of

known human-caused mortality is equivalent to:

306 x 0.04 = 12 total known human-caused bear mortalities, or

12 x 0.30 = 4 known human-caused female bear mortalities.

(11) The 4 percent known,human-caused mortality limit for1993 is 12 bears (see item 10). The current 6-

year average, annual, known, human-caused mortality is 11 bears (see item 5), or 3.8 percent of the

present minimum population estimate of 289 bears. This is below the limit of 4 percent.

64 • Part Three I Recovery
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

The known,human-caused female mortality limit for1993 is 30 percent of 12, or 4 bears (see item 10). As

of 1993, the 6-year average known, human-caused female mortalityis 6 (see item5). Thisis 50 percent of

the limitof 12 known mortalities and therefore exceeds the femalemortality limit of 30 percent.

Total human-caused grizzlymortality in the NCDEappears to be at or very nearsustainablelevels as

of 1993, however female grizzly mortality exceeds the mortality limits. These figures are based on

conservative population and mortality rate estimates.

Determine Population Conditions at which the Species is Viable and Self-sustaining. (Nil)

Reevaluate and refine population criteria as new information becomes available. The grizzly bear

population in the Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone will be viable when

monitoringeffortsindicatethatrecruitment andmortality are atlevels supporting astable to increasing

population, and reproducing females are distributed throughout the recovery zone. The population

will bejudged as meeting recovery population requirementswhen, as determined through systematic

monitoringthroughout the recovery zone, it meets each of the followingcriteria:

(a) The number of unduplicated females with cubs isaminimum of 12 outsideGNP anda minimum

of 10 inside GNP annuallyon arunning 6-year average both inside the recovery zone and within

a 10 mile area immediately surrounding the recovery zone, excluding Canada.

(b) The distributionof familygroups of grizzly bears representedby femalegrizzly bears accompaniedby cubs or yearlings or 2-year oldsis reported in 21 of the 23 BMU’s on arunning 6-yearsum

of observations. This is equivalent to verified evidence of atleast one female grizzly bear with

youngwithin 21 of 23 BMU’s over a6-year period. Furthermore, no two adjacentBMU’s can be

unoccupied over a6-year period. Recovery fortheNCDEpopulation cannot be achieved without

occupancy within the Mission Mountains portion of this ecosystem. The Rattlesnake BMU

should undergo an analysis of its habitat potential for occupancy by females with young. This

study should be done as soon as possible.

(c) The knownhuman-causedmortality level doesnot exceed 4 percent of the average ofthe previous

3 years minimum population estimatebased on the unduplicated number of females with cubs

minus known, adult female deaths (see Ni.). In addition, the known, human-caused female

mortality shall be no more than 30 percent of the total known mortality limit.

Other parameters maybemonitored to evaluate the status of the NCDEpopulation; however,the

primary parameters that will be used to judge the status of the population for achievement of

recovery and delistingwill be the three parameters detailed above: unduplicated females with

cubs, distribution of females with young, and annual known human-caused mortality.

Determine Population Monitoring Methods and Criteria. (Nih)

The maintenanceof a secure androbust grizzly bear population will require careful, continuous

monitoring. This monitoring should provide data to reasonably ensure that the population is

secure. The greater the number of parameters monitored, the greater the assurance that the

information is representative of the status of the population.

With thisin mind, asystemhas beendeveloped tomonitorawide range of parameters, with three

being of primary importance. These include: unduplicated number of females with cubs seen

annually, the distribution of females with young throughout the ecosystem, and the annual

Recovery I Part Three • 65
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

number of knownhuman-causedmortalities. Other factorsalsoshould be monitored to increase

the confidence in the information,but these threeparameters will be the keycriteriaused tojudge

the status of the population.

The target of distributionby females withyoung is designed to demonstrate adequate dispersion

ofthe reproductivecohort withinthe recoveryzone. Distribution of reproducing females alsowill

provide evidence of adequate habitatmanagement assuming that successfulreproduction is an

indicator of habitat sufficiency. Lastly, adequate distribution of family groupsindicatesfuture

occupancy of these areas because grizzly bear offspring, after weaning, and especially female

offspring, tend to occupy habitat within or nearthe home range of their mother.

Establish Reporting Procedures and Systems to Gather and Evaluate Information on Populations.

(Ni 12)

All cooperatingagency personnelshould reportfemaleswith cubs andfemales with youngon the

standard formasstatedin the Guidelines(U.S. ForestService1986). Agency personnelshould be

assignedto andresponsible foroneor moreBMU’s to ensure consistency in collection of reporting

information. It should be the responsibility of such personnel to report the annual number of

valid, verifiedfemales with cubs fortheir respectiveBMU’s to the appropriate reporting pointby

December 1 each year for compilation.

To eliminate duplicate reports, all sightings and track data should be reviewed by agency

representatives at an annual meeting. Methods to elimihate duplicate reports should follow

Knight and Blanchard (1993). A running 6-year average of unduplicated females with cubs

should be calculated usingthe annualreport data. All unduplicated females with cubs within the

UnitedStates outside the recovery zone line but within 10 airline miles of the line shallbe counted

as part of the total number seen within the recovery zone during that year. Additionally,

observations of females with young should be plotted annuallyfor arunning 6-year cumulative

total for determination of occupancy.

Determine current population conditions. (Ni2)

The present grizzly bear population in the NorthernContinental Divide Grizzly Bear Ecosystem, is

described by the following population characteristics:

Annual average unduplicated females w/cubs

(1987-1992, 6 yr. avg.) (fig. 8)

Inside GNP 11.3

Outside GNP 13.3

Annual average known, human-caused female deaths 5.7

(1987-1992 6 yr. avg.)

Annual average known, human-caused deaths 11.3

(1987-1992 6 yr. avg., M + F) (fig. 9)

Number of BMUs w/family groups 21 of 23

(1987-1992 running sum)

66 • Part Three I Recovery
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

Figure 8.

Unduplicated females

with cubs in the

NODE, 1987-1 992.

Average=1 1.3 inside

GNP; 12 outside GNP.

Figure 9.

Known Human-caused

mortalities in the

NODE. Average 1987

to 1992=11.3. Includes legal hunt

mortalities during

1987-1991.

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Recovery I Part Three • 67
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

Gather Information on Behavior, Physiological Condition, Population Distribution, Density,

Food Habits, Home Range, Reproduction, Survivorship, and Denning Activities. (Ni2i)

This information has been gathered since 1975 by researchersfrom theMontana Department of

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, BLM, BIA,

Tribal authorities, the U.S. Forest Service, British Columbia Wildlife Branch, and university

researchers. These data are presented in refereed journals and in annual project reports.

Identify the Human-related Population Limiting Factors if Present Populations Differ from

Desired. (Ni 3)

Mortality from direct and indirect sources both within and outside the recovery zone must continue

to be addressed ifpopulations are to be recovered. Severalprograms are currently conducted by the

MDFWP and through cooperative efforts of State and Federal agencies. These programs have been

successful in managing regulatedmortality and in limitingunregulated mortality.

Identify Sources of Direct Mortality. (Ni3i)

Identified sourcesof direct mortality include poaching, killingby vandals, andmalicious killing.

Accidental killings are aresult of mistaken identityby blackbear hunters. Controlby livestock

operators, apiarists, outfitters, hunter defense of quarry, and resort operators for protection of

property also results in direct mortality. Accidental deaths result fromroad kills (automobiles,

trains, etc.) or handling error when bears are captured for management or research. Direct

mortality also occurs during agency control of nuisance bears for livestock conflicts, other

property damage, or life-threatening situations. Live removal of a grizzly to a zoo or another

ecosystem as part of nuisance bearmanagement is alsoconsidereda mortalitybecauseindividual

relocated bears are no longer part of the population. Mortality occasionallyresults fromactions

of private citizens for self-defense or defense of others.

Identify Sources of Indirect Mortality. (Ni32)

Identified sourcesof indirect mortality are those actions that bring bears and people into conflict

such asroad use, land development, and recreation.These actions include but are not limited to

road construction, livestockgrazingoperations,timber harvest,mining,water development, and

energy exploration/development, recreation, and human development of confficting enterprises, (subdivisions, dog kennels, fish farms, pig farms,boneyards, garbage dumps, etc.).

Determine Effects of Human Activities on Bears and Bear Habitat and Incorporate the Results

into Management Plans and Decisions on Human Activities. (Ni33)

Complete research to document the effects of activities such as timber harvest, road use, oil and

gas exploration, and recreation on behavior, physiological condition, population distribution,

density, food habits, home range, reproduction,survivorship,and denning activities. Revisethe

Guidelines as necessary as thisinformation is obtained.

Redress Population Limiting Factors. (N2)

Develop ways to minimize actions that limit populations. Continue State and cooperative interagency

programs currently being conducted to manage mortality.

68 • Part Three I Recovery
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

Manage Sources of Direct Mortality. (N2i)

The recommended annual unmanaged human-induced grizzly bear mortality goal, within and

surrounding the recovery zone, for expediting speciesrecovery is zero. This mortalitygoal will not be

achievedbecausesome level of human-bear conflictisinevitable in the ecosystem. Reaching recovery

goals will be facilitated if all human-caused mortality within and outside the recovery zone does not

exceed 4 percent of the estimated population based on themostrecent 3-yearsumof females with cubs,

and no more than 30 percent of the mortality limitis female(see Ni above).

Known, human-causedmortalities in excess of the level sustainableata given number of unduplicated

females with cubs could result in population decline, while mortalities below thislevel would likely

result inpopulation increase. As the grizzly population increases, the number of sustainableknown,

human-inducedmortalities alsoincreases. The knownnumber of females withcubs is used to calculate

whatis believed to be aminimum population estimate;therefore, the projectednumber of sustainable

mortalities (less than 4 percent of this minimum population) is conservative.

Reduce Illegal Killing. (N2ii)

Use all methods possible to minimize illegal mortality.

Coordinate State, Federal, and Tribal Law Enforcement Efforts. (N2ill)

Provide a concerted lawenforcement effort by designatinga specially trained law enforcement team coordinated by the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service to minimize the illegal kill of

grizzly bears. One or more personsrepresenting the U.S. FishandWildlife Service,National

Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the State of Montana should be appointed. Each

membershould receive specializedtrainingtoworkon illegal killsof grizzly bears. The team

should be trained by biologistsin such matters as distribution, home ranges of identifiable

bears, movements by season, mating habits, current location of radio-marked bears, and

other biological informationthat maybe helpful to the team. Representativesfrom the U.S.

ForestServiceand Bureau of LandManagement should be encouraged to attend in orderto

assist more ably in gathering field evidence.

All incidents of grizzly bearkills, suspected illegal activities, andrumors of killsshould be

communicatedbetweenthe enforcement teamandtheir respective agencieson a dailybasis

or as often as is practical.

The EnforcementTeam Leader should keep all members of the enforcement teaminformed

and should organizecoordinationmeetings as needed. Special emphasisshould be directed

at covert operations that maybe operating commercially.

The EnforcementTeam should operate throughan interstate, interagency agreement under

the direction of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

It is imperative that the team leaderestablish aline of communication and rapportwith all

field personnel, field office staff, and local law enforcement agenciesso he/she may be

notified immediately on aviolation or threat of aviolation.

Recovery I Part Three • 69
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

Public assistance should be solicited in reporting suspected or known illegal kills. Persons

furnishing informationthat leads to a finding of civil violation or a conviction of acriminal

violation of 50 CFR17.40regarding grizzly bears, can be rewarded up t6 onehalf of the fine

or civil penalty.

States havingtoll-free numbersforreporting violations or for informationshould publicize

their numbers as means of reporting grizzly problems andgrizzly beardeaths.

Reduce Illegal Killing by Big Game Hunters and Mistaken Identity Killing by Black Bear Hunters.

(N2i 12)

The MDFWP should continue to make information about handling and storing game

available to big game hunters to reduce the likelihood of the carcass being claimed by a

grizzly. Informationshould continue to be provided to all blackbear huntersto assistthem

in distinguishing betweenblackand grizzly bears. Montana should issue specialwarnings

to blackbearhunters usingareasfrequented by grizzlybears. Blackbearhuntingregulations

shouldbemodified as appropriate to reduce oreliminateareas ofsignificant conflictsor time

periods of conflict.

Investigate and Prosecute Illegal Killing of Grizzly Bears. (N2ii3)

The special enforcement team should investigate accidental grizzly bear kills and recommend prosecution when appropriate.

Reduce Accidental Deaths. (N21 14)

Minimize those activitiesthat result in attraction of bearsto sites of conffictand management

mistakes that mightresult in losses.

Increase Efforts to Clean up Carrion and other Attractants In Association with Roads, Human

Habitation, and Developed Areas within Recovery Zones. (N21141)

All agenciesevaluate and improvewarning signs along highways and roadsin highusegrizzlybear areas. All agenciesshould increase efforts to cleanup carrionand other

attractants along highways and otherroutes within occupied grizzly bearrange.

Reduce Losses due to Mishandling of Bears during Research and Management Actions through

Development of a Bear Handling Manual. (N21 142)

To reduce losses due to mishandling ofbears (e.g., an overdose of immobilizing drugs

or improper handling), only experienced personnel that are certifiedby asponsoring

unit having the required permits and knowledge in the application of capture techniques, immobilizing drugs, transportation of drugged animals, and scientific data

collection should handle grizzly bears. Only the safest, most effective drugs available

should be used. A detailed manual for trapping, immobilizing, transporting, and

handling grizzly bears has been prepared for use by all agencies as a training and

reference manual.

Reduce Losses due to Predator and Rodent Control. (N21143)

Agenciesresponsible for licensing, conducting, or in anyway overseeing predator or

rodent damage control programs using toxic substances in occupied grizzly bear

habitatshould use themost selective (but effective) rodenticide available, and use it in

70 • Part Three I Recovery
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

lowest effective dosage. Poisonbait should only be used under the onsite supervision

of a certified applicator. Poisoning within grizzly bear habitatshould be delayed as

long as possible into July to minimize the potential for grizzly bears to consume

poisoned rodents or bait.

Agencycontrol on Federallandsshould be in accordancewith50 CFR17.40. For grizzly

bearsinvolvedin livestockconflicts, animaldamage control officers should follow the

Guidelines and otherinteragency agreements.

Ensure that Control of Nuisance Bears is Accomplished According to 50 CFR 17.40 and the

Guidelines. (N21 144)

All management control actions shouldbe carried out accordingto theGuidelines. The

only legal citizen control of a grizzly bear is that related to self-defense or defense of

others. The law enforcement team should carefully investigate every case of grizzly

bear mortality alleged to be self-defense or defense of others.

Reduce Losses by Developing and Implementing Public Education and Awareness Programs.

(N21 145)

Accidental mortalities and nuisance bear mortalities are often the result of lack of

informationabout the effects of humanbehavior on grizzly bears such as sanitation in

residential areas and back-country areas, as well as the behavior of back-country

visitors. Agenciesshould cooperate in the developmentand implementation of public

education programs.

Appoint a Grizzly Bear Mortality Coordinator. (N2i2)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has appointed an employee of MDFWP as grizzly bear

mortality coordinator to tabulate annual bear mortality for this ecosystem and ensure that all

cooperating agencies and the public have current mortality data. The coordinator should

maintainkeycontacts with all agencies and keep detailedrecords of all conditions surrounding

each grizzly bear death. Astandard formmeeting the needs of all agencies should be prepared.

Identify and Reduce Sources of Indirect Mortality. (N22)

Ongoing human actionsin grizzly habitatcontribute to bear-humanconflictsthat often result in bear

deaths. Management of these activities in consideration of the needs of bears should reduce indirect

mortality.

Make Domestic Livestock Grazing Compatible with Grizzly BearHabitat Requirements. (N22i)

Encourage consideration of grizzly habitat needs regarding grazing on State and private lands.

On Federallands, theGuidelines should be applied tomake grazingoperations compatible with

grizzly bearspacial andseasonal habitatrequirements. On State and private lands,agencies and

field personnel of agencies involvedin grizzly bearmanagement should communicate the intent

of the Guidelines as a cooperative extension effort.

Make Timber Harvest and Road Building Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Requirements.

(N222)

Encourage consideration of grizzly habitat needs androad densityguidelines relating to timber

harvest and road building on State and private lands. On Federal lands, the Guidelines should

Recovery IPart Three • 71
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

be applied androad densityguidelinesshould be phased in tomaketimberoperations compatible

with grizzly bearspacial andhabitatrequirements. On State and privatelands,agenciesand field

personnel of agenciesinvolvedin grizzly bearmanagement should communicate the intent of the

Guidelines and road density guidelines as a cooperative extension effort.

Make Mining and Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Compatible with Grizzly Bear

Habitat Requirements. (N223)

Encourage consideration of grizzly habitat needs and road densityguidelines relating tomining

and oil and gas exploration on State and private lands. On Federal lands or lands where

subsurface rights are under Federal jurisdiction, the Guidelines should be applied, and road

density guidelines should be phased in to make mining and energyoperations compatible with

grizzly bear spacial and habitat requirements. On State and private lands, agencies and field

personnel of agenciesinvolved in grizzly bearmanagementshould communicate the intent of the

Guidelines and road density guidelines as a cooperative extension effort.

Make Recreation on Federal Lands Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Needs. (N224)

On Federal lands, the Guidelines should be applied, and road density guidelines should be

phased in to makerecreationactivities compatible with grizzly bearspacial and habitat requirements.

Coordinate with State and County Governments to make Land Development and Land Use

Decisions within the Recovery Zones Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Needs. (N225)

Landmanagement agencies, State regulatoryagencies, countycommissioner, andcountyzoning

boards should be encouraged to give consideration to the needs of grizzly bears in any actions

requiring their approval. When homes,summer homes, cabins,camps,farmoperations, etc., with

attendant dog kennels,pig farms,garbagedumps, andlivestockcarcass disposalsites are allowed

to invade the habitat occupied by grizzly bears, they should directly or indirectly effectively

reduce the space and habitatnecessaryfor the bearssurvival. For private lands notsubject to the

above restrictions, wildlife managers should give consideration to purchase, lease, or easement

if habitat components are necessary to survival of the species.

Monitor the Cumulative Effects of Management Actions in Grizzly Bear Habitat. (N226)

Determine the cumulativeeffects of all or anycombination of the actions described above (N221-

N225) that may adversely impact grizzly bears through application of the cumulative effects

model on an ongoing basis. Past adverse impacts on the bears and their habitat must be amajor

consideration in the evaluationof anynew action. Newactions must be evaluated on aregional

basis to avoid the cumulative effects of several well planned individual actions impacting bears

fromtoo many directionssimultaneously. Historicalrecords indicate that atsome pointin time,

probably associated with the degree of stress, grizzly bears will no longer use certain portions of

their formerrange. Therefore, each new actionhasthe potential of being “the laststraw” fromthe

standpoint of the bear, and every effort must be made to evaluate each new action with respect

to former and future actions.

72 • Part Three I Recovery
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

Coordinate, Monitor, and Report on Activities Relating to Redressing Population Limiting

Factors and Monitor Compliance with the Recovery Plan. (N23)

This should be accomplished through the activities of the Coordinatorand the management subcommitteesof the IGBC. Actionsshould be takenby the management committees as necessaryto address

needs and to assure implementation of the recovery plan and the application of the Guidelines.

Determine the Habitat and Space Required for the Achievement of the Grizzly Bear

Population Goal. (N3)

Careful definition of the recovery zones should allow agenciesand the public to know wheregrizzly bears

andgrizzly habitatwill bemanaged. Information on range and thebiology of bears as well asthe nature and

quality of habitatis necessaryto ensure that habitatis properly managed andthatthe habitat delineated has

sufficient quality and quantity to support a viable population.

Define the Recovery Zone within which the Grizzly Bear will be Managed. (N3i)

The recovery zone for the NCDE was delineated by members of the Northern Continental Divide

ManagementSubcommittee of the IGBC (fig. 7). The recovery zonewas definedon the basisof thebest

available information on bear andbear habitat distribution and needs for a viable, well distributed

population. Present boundaries will be defined as the Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear

Recovery Zone and should be corrected and revised as new data become available.

Changes in the recovery zone lines can be made by a committee appointed by the ecosystem

managementsubcommittee consistingof representativesof the State wildlife agency,the U.S. Fishand

Wildlife Service, and the involvedland management agencies. Additions to the recovery zone line

require that a significant area of seasonally important habitatexist outside the existing recovery zone

linethatis used by grizzly bearsthat live primarilywithin the recoveryzone. The area to be addedmust

have significant value to the survival of the bears within the recovery zone. Changesin the recovery

zone lines should be madeusing the bestbiological information available.

Itisrecognized that grizzly bears will occur outside the recovery zone linesand thatthemerepresence

of bears outside the recovery zone line is not sufficient reason for changing the line. The area to be

added must be of significant biological value to bears residing inside the line. These values must be

demonstrated by habitat mapping and bear movement data. Any changes to the recovery zone line

should be approved by the ecosystem management subcommittee and the IGBC, and should be

subsequently added to the next draftof the recovery plan. Changesin the line should be finalized and

effective upon approval by the IGBC.

Identify Agency Management Stratifications within the Recovery Zone including the Delineation

of BMU’s and Management Situations 1,11, or Ill as Defined in the Guidelines. (N32)

The BMU’s should be defined on the basis of units suitable for application of the CEM. Management

situations should be defined according to the Guidelines. Correct delineation of the management

situation areas within the recovery zone as necessary as new informationbecomes available.

Conduct Research to Determine the Extent of Grizzly Bear Range. (N33)

This research is being conducted by cooperating agencies.

Recovery IPart Three • 73
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

Conduct Research to Determine Habitat Use, Food Habits, Home Range Size, and Seasonal

Habitat Preference, and Incorporate into Habitat Management Programs. (N34)

These data should be used to ensure that habitatvalues are available within the grizzly bear recovery

zone and that ongoing management actions do not significantly degrade these habitat values.

Information on behavior, population distribution, density, food habits, home range, reproduction,

survivorship,and denningactivitieshasbeen gatheredsince 1975by researchersfromtheMDFWP, the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Tribal

authorities, the U.S. Forest Service, British Columbia Wildlife Branch, and university researchers.

These data are presented in referenced journals and in annual project reports. It is crucial that this

information on the grizzly bears’ biological requirements be correlated with habitat conditions. Of

particular relevance are habitatfactorsrelating to ecosystem dynamicsthatmaylimitthe range or food

availability ofbears. These factorscan include climate change,fire effects, andplant phenology, habitat

availability changes, andgrowth patterns of majorfood species. Detailed information on these factors

should be gatheredas soon as possible and annualrecording of patternsshould be initiated in order

to recognize habitat dynamics changes as they might occur. This research and habitat evaluation

should be undertakenby the IGBST andcooperatingagencies. Results shouldbe used by management

agenciesto judge the effectiveness of management policies. Policies should be adjusted as necessary

when research demonstrates the need to do so. One area of special concern is the effect of fire

management in grizzly bear habitat. Natural fires can improve grizzly bearhabitatby increasing the

qualityand quantity of food sources. Fire suppression can reduce food availability and reduce habitat

quality.

Conduct Research to Determine the Relationship between Habitat Values, Physiological

Condition of Bears, and the Ability of the Habitat to Sustain a Population Density Necessary

to Achieve Viable Population Size. (N35)

This researchis being conducted by cooperating agencies. Resultsto be used by management agencies

to judge the effectiveness of management policies. Policies should be adjusted as necessary when

research demonstrates the needto do so.

Conduct Research to Determine the Effects of Various Road Densities on Grizzly Bear Habitat

Use and Human-caused Bear Mortality. (N36)

This researchis being conducted by cooperatingagencies. Resultsto be used by management agencies

to judge the effectiveness of management policies. Policies should be adjusted as necessary when

research demonstrates the need to do so.

Conduct Research on the Effects of Habitat Fragmentation Caused by Human Activities, such

as Modification of Cover Type, Road Building, and Human Residences, in orderto Assess the

Possibility of Linkage between Grizzly Bear Ecosystems and between HabitatTracts within

Ecosystems. (N37)

This research is being conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with various

Federal andStatelandmanagement agencies,local governments, andthe public. Resultsmaybe useful

to developinglong-term cooperative land management planning to include both public and private

sectors.

74 • Part Three I Recovery
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

Evaluate theApplicability of PVA to Grizzly Bear Recovery. (N38)

The PVA are based on theoretical biological models of a species reproduction, survival, and genetic

interchange and stability through time. The PVA studiessometimes havebeen utilized in identifying

possible population numbersthat may contribute to long-term species survival. The applicability of

aPVA study to grizzly bear recovery should be evaluated.

Monitor Populations and Habitats. (N4)

Population monitoring is necessary to determine the status of the population and to assess the success of

conservation efforts associated with recovery. An increasing population validates ongoing management

efforts, while a decreasing population indicates a failure to address problems facing the population.

Monitor Populations Before, During, and After Recovery. (N4i)

Develop and apply techniques to ensure the population is carefully monitored.

Develop and Conduct an Intensive Monitoring System to Measure the Annual Number of

Females with Cubs, Family Groups, and Number of Human-caused Mortalities. (N4ii)

The method is detailed in Nil andNih.

Develop a System of Agency Responsibilities to Collate, Analyze, and Report Annual

Information on Population Data. (N4i2)

The system is detailed inN112.

Standardize Observation Report Forms and Methods, and Develop Training Methods for all

Persons involved in reporting Sightings of Females with Cubs and Family Groups. (N4i 3)

Reporting systemis detailedin N112. Trainingmethods should include identification materials

to enable all individuals involved to identify and report the bear species seen, and to report

unknownspecies. Trainingmethods should be distributed to all agency reporting personneland

shouldbe formallypresented in trainingsessionsto seasonal andstaff personnel at the beginning

of each year in orderto ensure quality observation data. The needfor the consistency of at least

a minimumeffort should be emphasized.

Monitor Relocated Bears in Order to Assess the Success of Nuisance Bear Management.

(N414)

Efforts to monitor relocated bears should continue within the NCDE.

Monitor Habitats Before, During, and After Recovery. (N42)

Develop and apply techniques to ensure the habitatis carefully monitored.

Develop and Apply the CEAProcess to allow Monitoring of Effects of Management Actions over

a Large Geographic Area of Habitat. (N42i)

The CEA shouldbe completed,thoroughly evaluated, andrefined. If applicable, it can be applied

to assistin judgingthe suitability of ongoing management actions. Development of CEA requires

five phases: (1) data base compilation, (2) software development, (3) testing/validation, (4)

development of mortality submodel, and (5) development of thresholds. Biologists’ interpretation of data andoutputshould be acontinualpart of the CEA. The CEA is currently atthe testing!

Recovery I Part Three • 75
Northern Continental Divide GrizzlyBear Recovery Area

validation stagewhere databases arecomplete. Results of CEA testing andvalidation in the YGBE

will facilitate its use in other grizzly bearecosystems.

Complete Habitat Mapping of the Recovery Zone and Digitize these Data sothey are Available

for Use by the CEA. (N422)

Habitatmapping should be standardized and completed in a format compatible with the CEA.

Updating of these habitat maps should be programmed every 5 years, or as necessary.

Establish a Threshold of Minimal Habitat Values to be Maintained within each CEA Analysis

Unit in Order to Ensure that Sufficient Habitat is Available to Support a Viable Population.

(N423)

The thresholdvalueor series of valuesshould be used in conjunction with the CEA to judge that

ongoing actions in grizzly habitathavenot degraded the value and/or availability of the habitat

to bears. The objective of determining thresholdsis not to establish andmaintainminimalvalues,

but to establish a measureof the level of change ongoing in thehabitat. Agenciesshould attempt

tomanage habitat above thresholdvaluesto allowgreater environmentalflexibility forbears and

to benefit recovery.

Threshold values are unknownat thistime. Development of the thresholdvaluesshould be based

on the bestavailablebiological data on the habitatneeds andbiology of the grizzly bear. Itshould

be based onthe assumption that environmental diversity is necessaryforbear survival, especially

in years of food shortage due to environmental conditions (i.e., years of berry crop failure or

pinenut crop failure).

Apply CEA to each BMU to Ensure Habitat Quality is Sufficient for Maintenance of a Viable

Population and to Monitor Changes in Habitat as a Result of Human Activity. (N424)

As CEA becomes applicable in the NCDE, it should be applied every 5 years to each BMU to

monitor changes in habitat quality and availability as a result of human activities and natural

processes such as fire and plant succession. Deviations below the desired threshold level will

require reanalysis of humanactivities in the BMU to ensure reattainment of the thresholdlevel.

Primary responsibility for CEA application lies with the ecosystem data base coordinator.

Report Management Activities Successfully used to Manage Habitat. (N425)

Thisshould be completed as part of the ongoingbusiness of the management agencies,theNCDE

ManagementSubcommittee, and the Recovery Coordinator.

Develop a Conservation Strategy to Outline Habitat and Population Monitoring that will

Continue in Force after Recovery. (N426)

Development of aconservation strategyis underway for the NCDE. This conservation strategy

should detail the habitat andpopulation monitoringstructures thatwill be in place after removal

of the speciesfromthe threatened specieslist in this ecosystem. The conservation strategyshould

ensure that proper habitat and population monitoring will remain in place to ensure that the

species will remain recovered without protection under the Act. The conservation strategy

should be finalized and signedby all agencies priorto anyconsideration of delistingthe species.

Its existenceshould demonstratethe existenceof adequate regulatory mechanisms asrequiredby

section 4(b) of the Act.

76 • Part Three I Recovery
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

Manage Populations and Habitat. (N5)

Apply the best management techniques to ensure recovered populations.

Manage Populations and Habitat Prior to Recovery on Federal Lands. (N5i)

Refine Procedures for Relocating or Aversively Conditioning Nuisance Grizzly Bears. (N5ii)

Develop andcoordinate procedures to expedite the relocationof nuisance bears, andreviewand

update interagency agreements. Relocate bears within 24 hours and continue search for new

release areas. Research and develop methods to deal with problem bears and test and develop

aversive conditioning of bears, if possible. Evaluate the effects of relocated nuisance bears on

resident bears in relocation areas. Refine the Guidelines as necessary.

Develop and Test Procedures to Relocate Bears between Areas for Demographic or Genetic

Purposes. (N5i2)

Develop and coordinate interagency agreements and procedures for the introduction of one or

more grizzly bears into the breeding population in the Yellowstone area every 10 years for

maintenance of genetic diversity. The NCDEcould be a source forbears suitable for relocation

into the YE. This procedure is a proactive strategy to minimize the possibility of loss of genetic

diversityin the YE. Sources of such bearsshould be ecosystems with largerpopulations that are

not isolated breedingunits. Using nuisance bearsfor thispurpose should not be permitted. The

NCDE Management Subcommittee should address the use of NCDE bears for thisYellowstone

placement effort and initiate a review and position document on this need.

Apply Interagency Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines prior to Recovery that Maintain or

Enhance Habitats. (N5i3)

By applying the Guidelines, agencies should ensure that land use activities are conducted in a

mannerthatis compatiblewith grizzly bearrequirementsforspace andhabitatandminimizesthe

potentialforhuman/bearconflicts. Ensure thatroad densityguidelines are phasedwithin grizzly

bear habitat.

Manage Populations and Habitats on Private and State Lands. (N52)

Develop and apply management guidelines prior to recovery that maintain or enhance habitats.

Recommend land use activities compatible with grizzly bear requirements for space and habitat;

minimize potentialforhuman/bear conflicts. Implement cooperative effortswithState lands agencies

andprivate landownersto incorporate standards similarto the Guidelinesand road densityguidelines

in orderto ensure that management actions willbe sensitive to grizzlybear habitatneeds. Cooperative

efforts betweenState and Federal land management agencies will facilitate this process.

Develop a Conservation Strategy that Outlines all Habitat and Population Regulatory

Mechanisms in Force after Recovery. (N53)

Develop and implement conservation strategy that outlines all existing habitat and population

regulatory mechanisms for each ecosystem. Demonstrate the existence of adequate regulatory

mechanismsthatwill remain after recovery goals are reached. Provide guidelines for the continuation

of habitat andpopulation management upon recoveryof the grizzly bearpopulation in the ecosystem

Recovery/Part Three • 77
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

through the creation of an NCDE conservation strategy. A conservation strategy is being developed

currently for the NCDE. This conservation strategy should detail the habitat and population

management structures in the NCDE that will be in place after removal of the species from the

threatened specieslist in this ecosystem. The conservation strategy should ensure that proper habitat

and population managementshould remain in place to ensure thatthe specieswill remain recovered

without protection under the Act. The conservation strategy should be finalized and signed by all

agencies prior to any consideration of delisting the species. Its existence should demonstrate the

existence of adequate regulatory mechanisms as requiredby section 4(b) of the Act.

Develop and Initiate Appropriate Information and Education Programs. (N6)

Managing human-induced mortalities is a major factor in effecting the recovery of the grizzly bear.

Therefore, it is crucialto the recovery effortthatthepublic understandreasonsforactionsin orderto generate

tolerantor positive attitudes toward the bear. The IGBC has appointed an I&E subcommittee to develop

education programs and disseminate information. Private conservation organizations interested in the

recovery of grizzly bears provide valuable assistancewhen theyinclude appropriate information in their

publications and news releases.

Evaluate PublicAttitudes toward Grizzly Bear Management, Habitat Protection and

Maintenance, Land Use Restrictions, Mitigating Measures, Relocation of Bears, Hunting,

Nuisance Bear Control Actions, and HabitatAcquisition or Easement. (N61)

Public attitudes are a majorpart of the successor failure ofgrizzly bearrecovery efforts. Understanding

of these attitudes andthe basisfor public sentiment isimportant. Carefully designed research surveys

by qualified scientists experienced in suchsampling should be initiated. The managementsubcommittee membersshould formulate the basic questions and attitudes of interest. The data will be usefulin

designing public outreachprograms to foster public support for recovery programs.

Formulate Ways to Improve Public Attitudes about Grizzly Bears and the Grizzly Bear

Recovery Program. (N62)

Agencies should use the data on public attitudes to formulate public relations and I&E programs

through the respective I&E offices of each agency and the I&E subcommittee of the IGBC. Agencies

having the authority and responsibility for grizzly bear control actions should institute and carry out

I&Eprograms to inform citizens havingproblemswith grizzlybears of the appropriate procedures and

contacts for assistance.

Implement the Recovery Plan through Appointment of a Recovery Coordinator. (N7)

The Fish and Wildlife Service has appointed a Recovery Coordinator to collate relevant information on

grizzly bears and to coordinate and stimulate compliance and actionto implement the recovery plan. The

Coordinator should submit progress reports and conduct workshops and meetings as necessary. This

position providesa central focus for the accumulation, exchange, and dissemination of information, and a

central point for multi-agency coordination that will aid in the judicious use of resources and materially

enhance the recovery effort.

78• Part Three I Recovery
Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

Revise Appropriate Federal and State Regulations to Reflect Current Situations and Initiate

International Cooperation. (N8)

Ensure consistent, up-to-date regulationsandmaintaininternational cooperationandcommunication with

all other countries where brown bears are beingmanaged.

Revise Federal and State Regulations as Necessary. (N8i)

The RecoveryCoordinatorshould initiate the revision of Federalregulationswhennecessary through

the FederalRegister and CFR. The RecoveryCoordinator should assist Statesin regulation revisions as

necessaryto ensure thatregulationsprovide the State management authoritywith the ability to control

bearmortality. Such authorityis necessarytoensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms exist. These

regulations include CFR regulations and national forest and national park regulations regarding

sanitation. State regulationsinvolvedinclude regulations on the taking of bears and management of

hunting. Hunting of grizzly bears should be evaluated as a management tool to relieve population

pressures where such pressures are demonstrated.

Coordinate and Exchange Information and Expertise with Canada and other Countries

Concerning Bear Research and Management. (N82)

This will increase information exchange of state-of-the-art bear research and management, and will

promoteinternational cooperationandimprovemanagement andrecovery efforts. All IGBC member

agencies and the Coordinator should exchange information and expertise concerning recovery

activitieswith Canadaand other countriesmanaging bears. International cooperationis criticalto the

successof the grizzly bearrecovery effort. Four grizzly populationsspan the U.S. / Canadaborder and

the cooperationand involvement of Canadianmanagement authorities will facilitate conservation of

grizzlies in the U.S. Management authoriuies from British Columbia and Alberta need to be full

participantsin all aspectsof the recovery program. Research conducted in Canadaon grizzly bearsis

applicable to situationsin the U.S.; cooperationin funding such research, cooperative effortsinvolving

personnelfrom both countries, and sharing of research results is vital. Joint U.S./Canadian management of bears and bear habitat is necessary for the four ecosystems that lie along the U.S. / Canada

border. Cooperativeinternational management plansshould be developed for each ecosystem along

theborderincorporating concerns about the continuedmaintenance of habitats and populations. Such

planscurrently are being developed byMDFWP andwildlife agenciesinBritishColumbia and Alberta.

International communication on bears andbearmanagement is necessaryto the success of the recovery

effort. Many of the management problems and considerations facing the threatened grizzly bears in

the U.S.such as insularpopulations, small populationsize, conflictswith timberharvest andlivestock

grazing, genetic concerns relating to small population size, movement of bears from one area to

another, management ofsport hunting, and public attitudes are also facingmany of the other species

of bearsin Europe and Asia. Sharing of informationon management approaches andtechniques will

facilitate recovery in the U.S. as well as assist managers and researchers in other countries. The

Recovery Coordinator should facilitate cooperation and international communication and provide

information gained to managers and researchers as necessary.

Recovery 1 Part Three ‘79
i 

Figure 10 
CablnetlYaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

CabinetlYaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Subgoal: Forthe Cabinet!Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone (CYE), six females with cubs over a

running 6-year average both inside the recovery zone and within a 10 mile area immediately

surrounding the recovery zone, excludingCanada;l8of22 BMU’s occupied byfemales with young

froma running 6-yearsum ofverified evidence;andknown, human-causedmortality notto exceed

4 percent of the population estimate based on the most recent3-yearsum offemales with cubs.

Furthermore, no more than 30 percent of this 4 percent mortality limitshall be females. These

mortality limits cannot be exceeded during any 2 consecutive yearsfor recovery to be achieved.

Presentlygrizzly bearnumbers are so small in thisecosystem thatthe mortalitygoal shall be zero

known human-causedmortalities.

Establish the Population Objective for Recovery and Identify the Limiting Factors. (Cl)

Approximately 2,600 mi2 (6,734 kin2) are delineated as the recovery zone in this area (fig. 10). At recovery

levels, it is anticipated that the minimum population will be approximately 100 grizzly bears in this

ecosystem. The basis for thisgoal is the relatively smallsize of thisrecovery zone. It should be noted that

the 100 bears projected as the goal forthis area are asubset of a much largerpopulation that is contiguous

with grizzly bear populations northward into Canada. Bears will and do move freelyback and forth into

the recovery zone from adjacentgrizzly bear habitat in Canada. The population goal is set to ensure that a

sufficient population of grizzly bears existsthroughout the area to allow fora continued population in the

U.S. portion of this area. The goal indicates the status, based on the three key items monitored, of the

population in theCabinet/ Yaakportion of this contiguous area. These goals will be revisedas necessaryor

as new information becomes available.

Recovery targets for the CYE grizzly bear recovery zone were developed using the followingassumptions

and methods:

(1) Recovery of the CYE grizzly bearpopulation depends upon verificationthatthe population meetsthe

criteria for a recovered population. A recovered population is definedas one that (a) can sustain the

existinglevelof knownandunknown, unreported, human-causedmortalitythat exists withintheCYE,

and (b) is well distributed throughout the recovery zone in the CYE.

(2) Assuming that a minimum of 100 bears is a reasonable goal based on the size of the ecosystem and

because it is contiguous with grizzly populations in Canada, the target for the minimum number of

unduplicated females with cubs on a running 6-year average is six verified reports, both inside the

recovery zone and within a 10 mile area immediately surrounding the recovery zone, excluding

Canada. The target was derived using the following facts and assumptions about the grizzly bear

population in the CYE:

(a) A running 6-year average of unduplicated females with cubs is based on a 3-year reproductive

cycle and will allow atleast 2 years when each adult female alive can be reported with cubs. A

running 6-year tally will alsostabilize the average and make it lesssensitive to changes in annual

reporting levels and sightability.

Recovery I Part Three • 83
CabinetlYaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

(b) On average, 33 percent of adult females (atleast 5 years old) will be with cubs each year. Thisis

based on an average 3-year reproductive interval for adult females. Thus, the 6-year average

number offemales with cubscan be multiplied by threeto estimate theminimumnumber of adult

females in the population.

(c) The reporting efficiency forfemales with cubsis estimated to be 60 percent. Thus, of all females

with cubs in theCYE in agiven year, on average 60 percent will be detected!seen and reported

(based on average reporting of females on the Rocky Mountain Front, Montana, Aune and

Kasworm 1989). This is a conservative estimate of females with cubs. Because of the forested

nature of much ofthe CYE,the reporting efficiencyismost likelylower than60 percent. Therefore,

the calculated minimumnumber of females withcubs willunderestimate the actual number. This

processis designed to err on the side of the bear.

(d) The grizzly population in the CYE is assumed to be 50 percent adults and 50 percent subadults

(Grizzly BearCompendium, 1987, pp. 47-59).

(e) The sexratio of both adults andsubadults is assumedto be 1:1 (Grizzly BearCompendium, 1987.

pp. 47-59).

(f) The proportion of adult females in the population is 28.40percent(usingmethodsin Knight et al.

1988, Appendix C, and Knight et al. 1993, Appendix D).

The target of atleast 6 females with cubsis sufficientto indicateaminimum population of atleast 106

bears (using method of Knight et al. 1988) (Appendix C):

6 females with cubs seen divided by 0.6 (sightability correction factor) = 10 total females with cubs;

lOx 3 =30 adult females; 30 divided by 0.2840 (the assumedproportion of adult femalesin population)

= a minimum of 106 grizzly bears in the CYE.

(3) There is arelationshipbetween sustainablehuman-caused mortality and the number of unduplicated

females with cubs. Therefore, the number of females with cubs can be usefulin managing mortality.

(4) Human-caused mortality will continueatsome long-term rate dueto inevitable interactions between

bears and people.

(5) Unknown, unreported, human-caused mortality occurs each year atsome level.

(6) The maximum human-caused mortality level that can be sustained without population decline by a

grizzly bear population .is 6 percent when no more than 30 percent of these mortalities are females

(Harris 1984).

(7) The presentminimum population estimate fortheCabinet!Yaak ecosystemis 15-20 bears. Insufficient

monitoring data are available to report the number of females with cubs at thistime. Because of low

estimated population and uncertainty in estimates, the current human-caused mortality goal to

facilitate recovery of the population is zero. In reality, this goal maynot be realizedbecause humanbear conflicts are likely to occur atsome level within the ecosystem. Management willstrive to prevent

all human-caused grizzly bear mortality in the CYE.

84 • Part Three I Recovery
Cabinet/Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

(8) In the future, to facilitate recovery of the population as population growth isrealized and to allow for

both error in minimum population estimates and for unknown, unreported mortality, the humancaused mortality limit for the CYE population will be 4 percent, 30 percent of whichmaybe females.

In orderto account forchanges in population size andto establish alink between population size and

known, human-caused mortality, the mortality limit will be recalculated annually using the most

recent 3-yearsum of females withcubs as described in Y1. The lead for completion of these calculations

shall be the RecoveryCoordinator of the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service working in cooperationwith

other agencies. This mortality level is conservative because:

(a) it is applied to a minimumpopulation estimate thatis based on the number of females with cubs

seen in the CYF, correctedby a conservative sightability factor(asdetailedin 2c). It is recognized

that the actual population size islikely higher than the estimate; and

(b) according to Harris (1985), a grizzly bear population can sustain 6 percent human-caused

mortality without experiencinga decline in that population.

For the presentCYE population estimate, the annual goalis zeroknown, human-causedmortality. The

female mortality limitwill remain zerountil the three keyparametersindicateaminimum population

of approximately 100 grizzly bears. Management will strive to prevent all human-caused mortality

within and surrounding the CYE. If control actions are deemed absolutely necessary, the population

will probably not experience overall decline ifhuman-caused mortality remainsless than 4 percent.

For instance, a population of 86 grizzly bears could theoreticallysustain a total of three mortalities or

one female mortality annually (86 x 0.04 = 3, and 3 x 0.30 = 1). However, these calculations do not

accountfor demographic, genetic, or other problems that can be amplified dramaticallyin such small

populations.

Determine Population Conditions at which the Species is Viable and Self-sustaining. (Cli)

Reevaluate and refine population criteria as new information becomes available. The grizzly bear

population in the CYE will be viablewhen monitoringefforts indicatethat recruitment and mortality

are at levels supporting a stable or increasing population, and reproducing females are distributed

throughout the recovery zone. The population will be judged as meeting recovery population

requirements when, as determined through systematic monitoring throughout the recovery zone, it

meets each of the following criteria:

(a) The average number of unduplicated femalegrizzly bears with cubsis aminimumofsix annually

on a running 6-year average both inside the recovery zone andwithin a 10 mile area immediately

surrounding the recovery zone, excluding Canada.

(b) The distribution of family groups of grizzly bears representedby femalegrizzly bears accompaniedby cubs or yearlings or 2-year oldsisreportedin 18 of the 21 BMU’s on arunning 6-yearsum

of observations. This is equivalent to verified evidence of atleast one grizzly bear female with

young within 18 of 21 BMU’s over a 6-year period.

(c) The known, human-caused mortality level does not exceed 4 percent of the population estimate

based on themost recent 3-yearsum of females with cubs, minusknown adult female mortality.

Additionally, no more than 30 percent of the known, human-caused mortality limit shall be

females. However, the mortality goal for this ecosystem is zero until the three key parameters

monitored indicate a population of approximately 100 bears.

Recovery I Part Three • 85
CabinetlYaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zoiie

Determine Population Monitoring Methods and Criteria. (Clii)

The maintenance of a secure and robust grizzly bear population will require ongoing careful

monitoring. This monitoring should provide data to allow reasonable assurance that the

population issecure. The greaterthe number of parameters monitored, the greaterthe assurance

that the information is representative of the status of the population.

With thisin mind, asystemhasbeendeveloped tomonitorawide range of parameters, with three

being of primaryimportance. These include (1) unduplicated number of females with cubsseen

annually,(2)the distributionof femaleswith young throughout the ecosystem, and(3) the annual

number of known human-causedmortalities. Other factorsshould alsobe monitoredto increase

the confidence in the information,but these threeparameters will be the keycriteria used tojudge

the status of the population. The target of distribution by females with young is designed to

demonstrate adequate dispersion of the reproductive cohort within the recovery zone. Distribution of reproducing females alsowill provide evidence of adequate habitat management assuming that successfulreproduction is an indicator of habitat sufficiency. Lastly, adequate distribution of family groupsindicates future occupancy of these areas because grizzly bear offspring,

especially female offspring, tend to occupyhabitatwithin or nearthe home range of their mother

after weaning.

Establish Reporting Procedures and Systems to Gather and Evaluate Information on Populations.

(C112)

All cooperating agency personnel should report females with cubs of the year on the standard

formasstatedin the Guidelines(U.S. ForestService1985). Agency personnelshould be assigned

to and responsible forone or morebear management units to ensure consistency in collection of

reporting information. It should be the responsibility of such personnel to submit an annual

report of the number of verified females with cubs for their respective BMU’s to the appropriate

reporting point by December 1 for compilation.

To eliminateduplicate reports,sightings and trackdata should be reviewed by agency representatives atan annual meeting. Methods to eliminate duplicate reports should follow Knight and

Blanchard (1993). A running 6-year average of unduplicated females with cubs should be

calculated using the annual report data. All unduplicated females with cubs within the U.S.

outside the recovery zone line but within 10 airline miles of the line shallbe countedas part of the

total number seen within the recovery zone during that year. Additionally, observations of

females with young should be plotted annually for a running 6-year cumulative total for

determination of occupancy.

Determine Current Population Conditions. (C12)

The present grizzly bear population in.the CYE is far below the levels necessary for viability. It is

estimated that the population of grizzly bearsin the east and west Cabinet Mountains is less than 15

animals. During 5 years of intensive research from1983-87, only 3 grizzly bears were captured in this

area while over 180 blackbears were captured(Kasworm and Manley 1988). One femalewas known

in this area, and she was 34 years old when she lost her collar in 1989. She is apparently beyond

reproductive age andhasnever beenseenwith young during 6 years of monitoring. In 1990, a subadult

female was successfully relocated into the Cabinet portion of the ecosystem (Kasworm and Thier

1991a). Asecond femalewasrelocated into theCabinetsin 1992 (Kaswormetal. 1993). This femalewas

seenwitha cubin the spring of 1993. Both bears are knownto haveremained in theCabinets. The Yaak

88 • Part Three I Recovery
CabinetlYaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

area betweentheKootenaiRiver and theCanadianborder has asmallgrizzly population. Eightgrizzly

bears were captured and radio-collared in the Yaak during 1986-1991, and reproduction has been

documented. Detailed monitoringof females with cubsin theCYE has beenlimited. Ongoing research

activities should include the development and implementation of a reporting process.

Identify the Human-related Population Limiting Factors if Present Populations Differ from

Desired. (C13)

Mortality from direct and indirect sources within and surrounding the recovery zone must be

addressed ifpopulations are to recover.

Identify Sources of Direct Mortality. (C131)

Sourcesof direct mortality include illegal hunting,poaching, vandal killing, andmaliciouskilling.

Accidental killings are aresult of mistaken identityby blackbearhunters. Private citizen control

by livestock operators, apiarists, outfitters, hunter defense of quarry, and resort operators for

protection of property alsomay result in direct mortality. Accidentaldeathsresult from road kills

(automobiles, trains, etc.) or handlingerror whenbears are capturedformanagement or research.

Direct mortality may also occur during agency control of nuisance bears for livestockconflicts,

other property damage,orlife-threateningsituations. Live removal of a grizzly to azooor another

ecosystemas part of nuisance bearmanagement is alsoconsidereda mortality becauseindividual

relocated bears are no longer part of the population. Mortality occasionally resultsfrom actions

of private citizens for self-defense or defense of others.

Identify Sources of Indirect Mortality. (C132)

Sources of indirect mortality are those actions that bring bears and people into conflict such as

road use, land development, and recreation. These actions include but are not limited to road

construction, livestock grazing operations, timber harvest, mining, water development, energy

exploration/development, recreation, and human development of conflicting enterprises, (subdivisions, dog kennels, fish farms, pig farms, livestockdisposal sites, garbage dumps, etc.).

Determine Effects of HumanActivities on Bears and Bear Habitat and Incorporate the Results

into Management Plans and Decisions on Human Activities. (C133)

Complete research to document the effects of timber harvest, road use, oil and gas exploration,

hard rock mining, and recreation on behavior, physiological condition, population distribution,

density, food habits, home range, reproduction, survivorship, and denning activities of grizzly

bears. Revise the Guidelines as necessary as thisinformation is obtained.

Redress Population Limiting Factors. (C2)

Develop ways to minimize actions that limit populations.

Reduce Sources of Direct Mortality. (C21)

The recommended annual human-induced grizzlybear mortality limitforexpediting speciesrecovery

is zero. Thisis necessaryforthe presentbecauseof the lowpopulation ofgrizzly bearsin thisecosystem.

This mortality limit may not be achieved because some level of human-bear conflict within the

ecosystem is inevitable. Reaching recovery goals will be facilitated if all human-caused mortality

within and outside the recovery zone does not exceed 4 percent of the estimated population based on

Recovery I Part Three • 87
CabinetlYaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

the mostrecent3-yearsum of females with cubs, andno more than30 percent of thismortality isfemale

(see Cl. above).

Known, human-causedmortalitiesin excess of the level sustainableata given numberof unduplicated

females with cubs could result in population decline, while mortalities below thislevel would likely

result in population increase. Asthe grizzly population increases, the number ofsustainable, known,

human-induced mortalities also increases. The known number of females with cubs will be used to

calculate what is believed to be a minimum population estimate; therefore, the projected number of

sustainable mortalities (less than 4 percent of this minimum population) is conservative.

However, atthistime, thereare insufficient numbers of bearsin theCabinet/Yaak to sustain even low

levels of human-causedmortality. Therefore, management should strive to preventall human-caused

mortality.

Reduce Illegal Killing. (C211)

Use all methods possible to minimize illegal mortality.

Coordinate State, Federal, and Canadian Law Enforcement Efforts. (C2111)

Provide a concerted law enforcementeffort by designatingaspecially trained law enforcement team coordinated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to minimize the illegal kill of

grizzly bears. One or more persons representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Forest Service, States of Montana and Idaho, and British Columbia should be appointed.

Eachmembershouldreceive specialized training toworkon illegal killsof grizzlybears. The

team should be trained initially by biologists in such matters as distribution, home ranges

of identifiablebears, movementsby season, matinghabits, current location of radio-marked

bears, and other biological information that may be helpful to the team.

All incidents of grizzly bear kills, suspected illegal activities, and rumors of killsshould be

communicatedbetweenthe enforcementteamand their respective agencieson adailybasis

or as often as is practical.

The EnforcementTeam Leadershould keep all members of the enforcement teaminformed

and shouldorganizecoordination meetings as needed. Special emphasisshould be directed

at covert operations that may be operating commercially.

The EnforcementTeam should operate through an interstate, interagency agreementunder

the direction of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

It is imperative that the group leader establish a line of communications and rapportwith

all field personnel, field officestaff, and local lawenforcementagenciesin orderthat he /she

maybe notified immediately on aviolation or threat on a violation.

Public assistance should be solicited in reporting suspected or knownillegal kills. Persons

furnishing information that leads to a finding of civil violation or aconviction of a criminal

violation of 50 CFR 17.40 regarding grizzly bears can be rewardedup to one half of the fine

or civil penalty.

88 • Part ThreelRecovery
cablnetlYaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

States having toll-free numbersforreporting violations or forinformation should publicize

their numbers as means of reporting grizzly problemsand grizzly bear deaths.

Reduce Illegal Killing by Big Game Hunters and Mistaken Identity Killing by Black Bear Hunters.

(C2112)

Montana and Idaho should makeinformationabout handlingand storinggame availableto

big game hunters to reduce the likelihood of the carcass being claimed by a grizzly.

Information should be provided to all blackbear hunters to assist them in distinguishing

betweenblackand grizzlybears. Montana andIdaho should issue specialwarningsto black

bearhunters usingareasfrequented by grizzly bears. Blackbearhuntingregulationsshould

be modified as appropriate to reduce or eliminate areas of significant conflicts or time

periods of conflict. Special attentionshould be given to evaluateandeliminate as necessary

bear baiting in recovery zones. Bearbaiting is prohibited in all portions of Montana.

Investigate and Prosecute Illegal Killing of Grizzly Bears. (C2113)

The special enforcement team should investigate accidental grizzly bear kills and recommend prosecution when appropriate.

Reduce Accidental Deaths. (C2114)

Minimize those activitiesthat result in attraction of bearsto sites of conflict andmanagement

mistakes that mightresult in losses.

Increase Efforts to Clean up Carrion and Other Attractants In Association with Roads, Human

Habitation, and Developed Areas within Recovery Zones. (C21 141)

All agenciesshould evaluate andimprovewarning signs along highways androadsin

high-usegrizzly bearareas. All agenciesshould increase effortsto clean up carrion and

other attractants along highways andotherrouteswithin occupied grizzly bearrange.

Reduce Losses Due to Mishandling of Bears During Research and Management Actions through

Development of a Bear Handling Manual. (C21142)

To reduce losses dueto mishandling of bears (e.g., an overdoseof immobilizing drugs

or improper handling), only experienced personnel that are certified by a sponsoring

unit having the required permits and knowledge in the application of capture techniques, immobilizing drugs, transportation of drugged animals, and scientific data

collection should handle grizzly bears. Only the safest, most effective drugs available

should be used. A detailed manual for trapping, immobilizing, transporting, and

handling grizzly bears has been prepared for use by all agencies as a training and

reference manual.

Reduce Losses Due to Predator and Rodent Control. (C21143)

Agenciesresponsible forlicensing, conducting, or in anyway overseeing predator or

rodent damage control programs using toxic substances in occupied grizzly bear

habitatshould use the mostselective (but effective) rodenticide available, and use it in

lowest effective dosage. Poisonbait should be used only under the onsite supervision

of a certified applicator. Poisoning within grizzly bear habitatshould be delayed as

long as possible into July to minimize the potential for grizzly bears to consume

poisoned rodents or bait.

Recovery! Part Three • 89
CabinetlYaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Agency control on Federallandsshould bein accordance with50 CFR17.40. For grizzly

bearsinvolvedin livestockconflicts, animaldamage control officersshould followthe

Guidelines and other interagency agreements.

Ensure that Control of Nuisance Bears isAccomplished According to 50 CFR 17.40 and the

Guidelines. (C21144)

All management control actionsshould be carried out according to theGuidelines.The

only legal citizen control of a grizzly bear is that related to self-defense or defense of

others. The law enforcement team should carefully investigate every case of grizzly

bear mortality alleged to be self-defense or defense of others.

Reduce Losses by Developing and Implementing Public Education and Awareness Programs.

(C21 145)

Accidental mortalities and nuisance bear mortalities are often the result of lack of

informationaboutthe effects of humanbehavior on grizzly bears such assanitation in

residential areas and back-country areas as well as the behavior of back-country

visitors. Agenciesshould cooperate in the development andimplementation of public

education programs.

Appoint a Grizzly Bear Mortality Coordinator. (C212)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has appointed an employee of MDFWP as grizzly bear

mortality coordinator to tabulate annual bear mortality for this ecosystem and ensure that all

cooperating agencies and the public have current mortality data. The coordinator should

maintainkey contacts with all agenciesand keep detailed records of all conditions surrounding

each grizzly bear death. A standard form meeting the needs of all agenciesshould be prepared.

Identify and Reduce Sources of Indirect Mortality. (C22)

Ongoing human actions in grizzly habitat contribute to bear-human confficts that often result in bear

deaths. Management of these activities in consideration of the needs of bears will reduce indirect

mortality.

Make Domestic Livestock Grazing Compatible with Grizzly BearHabitat Requirements. (C221)

Encourage consideration of grizzly habitat needs regarding grazing on State and private lands.

On Federallands,the Guidelines should be applied tomakegrazing operations compatiblewith

grizzly bearspacial andseasonal habitatrequirements. On State and privatelands, agencies and

field personnel of agenciesinvolved in grizzly bearmanagement should communicate the intent

of the Guidelines as a cooperative extension effort.

Make Timber Harvest and Roadbuilding Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Requirements.

(C222)

Encourage consideration of grizzly habitat needsrelatingto timber harvest and roadbuilding on

State and private lands. On Federal lands, the Guidelines should be applied and road density

guidelines should be phased in tomake timber operations compatible with grizzly bearspacial

and habitat requirements. On State and private lands, agenciesand field personnel of agencies

involvedin grizzly bearmanagementshould communicate the intent of theGuidelines androad

density guidelines as a cooperative extension effort.

90 Part Three I Recovery
cabinet/Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Make Mining and Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Compatible with Grizzly Bear

Habitat Requirements. (C223)

Encourage consideration of grizzly habitatneeds and road densityguidelinesrelatingto mining

and oil and gas exploration on State and private lands. On Federal lands or lands where

subsurface rights are under Federaljurisdiction, the Guidelines should be applied; road density

guidelines should be phased in to make mining and energy operations compatible with grizzly

bearspacial and habitat requirements. On State and private lands, agencies and field personnel

of agenciesinvolved in grizzly bear managementshould communicate the intent of the Guidelines and road density guidelines as a cooperative extension effort.

Make Recreation on Federal Lands Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Needs. (C224)

On Federallands, theGuidelines should be applied androad densityguidelinesshould be phased

in to make recreation activities compatible with grizzly bearspacial andhabitat requirements.

Coordinate with State and County Governments to Make Land Development and Land Use

Decisions within the Recovery Zones Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Needs. (C225)

Land management agencies,State regulatory agencies,county commissioner, andcountyzoning

boards should be encouraged to give consideration to the needs of grizzly bears in any actions

requiring their approval. When homes, summerhomes, cabins,camps,farmoperations, etc., with

attendant dog kennels, pig farms, garbage dumps, and livestock disposal sites are allowed to

invade the habitatoccupied by grizzly bears, theyshould directly or indirectly effectively reduce

the space and habitat necessary for the bearssurvival. For private lands notsubject to the above

restrictions, wildlifemanagersshould giveconsiderationto purchase, lease,or easementifhabitat

components are necessary to survival of the species.

Monitor the Cumulative Effects of Management Actions in Grizzly Bear Habitat. (C226)

Determine the cumulative effects of all or anycombination of the actions described above (C221-

C225) that may adversely impact grizzly bears through application of the cumulative effects

model on an ongoing basis. Past adverse impacts on the bears and their habitat mustbe amajor

consideration in the evaluationof anynew action. New actions must be evaluated on aregional

basis to avoid the cumulative effects ofseveral well plannedindividual actions impacting bears

from too many directionssimultaneously. Historical recordsindicatethat atsome pointin time,

probably associated with the degree of stress, grizzlybears will no fongeruse certain portions of

their formerrange. Therefore, each new actionhas the potential ofbeing “the laststraw” from the

standpoint of the bear, and every effort must be made to evaluate each new action with respect

to former and future actions.

Coordinate, Monitor, and Report Activities Relating to Redressing Population•limiting

Factors, and Monitor Compliance with the Recovery Plan. (C23)

This should be accomplished through the activities of the Coordinator andthe management subcommittees of the IGBC. Actions should be takenby the management committees as necessaryto address

needs and to ensure implementation of the recovery plan and the applicationof the Guidelines.

RecoveryI Part Three • 91
cabinetdvaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Determine the Habitat and Space Required for the Achievement of the Grizzly Bear

Population Goal. (C3)

Carefuldefinitionof the recovery zones will allowagencies and the public to know wheregrizzly bears and

grizzly habitat will be managed. Information on range and the biology of bears as well as the nature and

quality of habitatis necessary to ensure that habitatis properlymanaged andthatthe habitat delineated has

sufficient quality and quantity to support a viable population.

Define the Recovery Zone within which the Grizzly Bear will be Managed. (C31)

The recovery zone forthe CYE was delineated by members of theNorthwest Ecosystem Management

subcommittee of the IGBC (fig. 10). The recovery zone was defined on the basis of the best available

informationon bearand bearhabitat distribution andneeds for aviable, well distributed population.

Present boundaries will be defined as the Cabinet/Yaak Grizzly BearRecovery Zone and should be

corrected and revisedas new data become available.

Changes in the recovery zone lines can be made by a committee appointed by the ecosystem

managementsubcommittee consisting of representativesof the State wildlife agency, the U.S. Fishand

WildlifeService, and the involvedlandmanagement agencies. Additionsto the recovery zone require

that asignificant area of seasonallyimportanthabitat exist outside the existing recovery zone line, and

thatit be used by grizzly bearsthat live primarilywithin the recovery zone. The area to be addedmust

have significant value to the survival of the bears within the recovery zone. Changesin the recovery

zone lines should be made using the best biological information available.

Itisrecognized that grizzly bears will occur outside the recovery zone linesand thatthemerepresence

of bears outside the recovery zone line is not sufficient reason for changing the line. The area to be

added must be of significant biological value to bears residing inside the line. These values must be

demonstrated by habitat mapping and bear movement data. Any changes to the recovery zone line

should be approved by the ecosystemmanagementsubcommittee andthe IGBC, andshould be added

to the next draft of the recovery plan.

IdentifyAgency Management Stratifications within the Recovery Zone including the Delineation

of BMU’s and Management Situations 1,11, or Ill as Defined in the Guidelines. (C32)

The BMU’s should be defined on the basis of units suitable for applicationof the CEM. Management

situations should be defined according to the Guidelines (1985). Correct delineation of the management situation areas within the recovery zone as necessary as new information becomes available.

Conduct Research to Determine the Extent of Grizzly Bear Range. (C33)

This research is being conducted by cooperating agencies.

Conduct Research to Determine Habitat Use, Food Habits, Home Range Size, and Seasonal

Habitat Preference and Incorporate into Habitat Management Programs. (C34)

These data should be used to ensure that habitatvalues are availablewithin the grizzly bearrecovery

zone, and that ongoing management actions dc not significantly degrade these habitat values.

Information on behavior, population distribution, density, food habits, home range, reproduction,

survivorship, anddenning activities hasbeen gatheredsince 1982 byresearchers from theMDFWP, the

92 • Part Three/Recovery
cabinet/veak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and university researchers. These data are

presented in peer-reviewedjournals and in annual project reports.

Itis crucialthatthisinformationon the grizzly bears biological requirementsbe correlatedwith habitat

conditions. Of particular relevance are habitatfactorsrelatingto ecosystem dynamics thatmay limit

the range or food availability of bears. These factors can include climate change, fire effects, plant

phenology, habitatavailability changes, andgrowth patternsof majorfood species. Detailed information on these factorsshould be gathered as soon as possible, and annual recording of patternsshould

be initiated in order to recognize habitat dynamics changes as they might occur. This research and

evaluation should be conducted by cooperating agencies. Results are to be used by management

agenciesto judge the effectiveness of management policies. Policiesshould be adjustedas necessary

when research demonstrates the need to do so. One area of special concern is the effect of fire

management in grizzly bear habitat. Natural fires can improve grizzly bearhabitat by increasing the

quality and quantity of food source. Fire suppressioncan reduce foodavailability and reduce habitat

quality.

Conduct Research to Determine the Relationship between Habitat Values, Physiological

Condition of Bears, and the Ability of the Habitat to Sustain a Population Density Necessary

toAchieve Viable Population Size. (C35)

This researchis being conducted by cooperatingagencies. Resultsto be used by managementagencies

to judge the effectiveness of management policies. Policies should be adjusted as necessary when

research demonstrates the need to do so.

Conduct Research to Determine the Effects ofVarious Road Densities on Grizzly Bear Habitat

Use and Human-caused Bear Mortality. (C36)

This researchis being conducted by cooperatingagencies. Resultsto be used by management agencies

to judge’ the effectiveness of management policies. Policies should be adjusted as necessary when

research demonstrates the need to do so.

Conduct Research on the Effects of Habitat Fragmentation Caused by Human Activities, such

as Modification of Cover Type, Road Building, and Human Residences, in order to Assess the

Possibility of Linkage between Grizzly Bear Ecosystems and between Habitat Tracts within

Ecosystems. (C37)

This research is being conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with various

Federaland State landmanagement agencies,local governments, andthe public. Resultsmaybe useful

to developing long-term cooperative land management planning to include both public and private

sectors.

Evaluate the Applicability of PVA to Grizzly Bear Recovery. (C38)

The PVA are based on theoretical biological models of a species reproduction, survival, and genetic

interchange and stability through time. The PVA studies havebeenutilized sometimes in identifying

possible population numbers that maycontribute to long-term species survival. The applicability of

a PVA study to grizzly bear recovery should be evaluated.

Recovery I Part Three • 93
cabinetlYnkGrizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Monitor Populations and Habitats. (C4)

Population monitoring is necessary to determine the status of the population and to assess the success of

conservation efforts associated with recovery. An increasing population validates ongoing management

efforts, while a decreasing population indicates a failure to address problemsfacing the population.

Monitor Populations Before, During, and After Recovery. (C41)

Develop and apply techniques to ensure the population is carefully monitored.

Develop and Conduct an Intensive Monitoring System to Measure theAnnual Number of

Females with Cubs, Family Groups, and Number of Human-caused Mortalities. (C411)

The method is detailed in Cli and Clii.

Develop a System ofAgency Responsibilities to Collate,Analyze, and Report Annual

Information on Population Data. (C412)

The system is detailed in C112.

Standardize Observation Report Forms and Methods, and Develop Training Methods for all

Persons involved in Reporting Sightings of Females with Cubs and Family Groups. (C413)

Reporting system detailed in C112. Trainingmethods should involveidentification materials to

enable individuals involved to be able to identify the beai species seen or to be able to report

unknown species. Trainingmethods should be distributed to all agency reporting personnel, and

should be formally presentedin training sessionsto seasonaland staff personnel atthe beginning

of each field season in order to ensure quality observation data.

Monitor Relocated Bears in Order to Assess the Success of Nuisance Bear Management.

(C414)

The probability of having nuisance bears at such low bear densities is slight; however, if abear

should become anuisance such bears should be relocated and monitored.

Monitor Habitats Before, During, and After Recovery. (C42)

Develop and apply techniques to ensure the habitat is carefully monitored.

Develop and Apply the CEAProcess toAllow Monitoring of Effects of Management Actions

over a Large Geographic Area of Habitat. (C421)

The CEA should be completed,thoroughly evaluated,and refined. Ifapplicable, it can be applied

to assistinjudging the suitability ofongoing management actions. Development of CEA requires

five phases (1) data base compilation, (2) software development, (3) testing/validation, (4)

development of mortality submodel, and (5) development of thresholds. Biologists’ interpretation of data and outputshouldbe acontinual part of theCEA. The CEA iscurrently atthe testing!

validation stagewheredatabases are complete. Results of CEA testing andvalidation in the YGBE

will facilitate its use in other grizzly bearecosystems.

94 • Part Three! Recovery
cabinet/Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Complete Habitat Mapping of the Recovery Zone and Digitize these Data sothey are Available

for use by the CEA. (C422)

Habitat mapping should be standardized and completed in aformat compatible with the CEA.

Updating of these habitat maps should be programmed every 5 years. or as necessary.

Establish a Threshold of Minimal Habitat Values to be Maintained within each CEA unit in Order

to Ensure that Sufficient Habitat isAvailable to Support a Viable Population. (C423)

The thresholdvalues or series of values are the benchmarks used in conjunction with the CEA to

judge that ongoing actions in grizzly habitat have not degraded the value and/or availability of

the habitat to bears. The objective of determining thresholds is not to establish and maintain

minimal values, but to establish a measure of the level of ongoing change in the habitat.

Management should attempt to manage habitat above threshold values. Maintenance of habitat

values above the threshold values allows greater environmental flexibility for bears and wrn

benefit recovery.

Threshold values are unknownatthistime. Development of the threshold valuesshouldbe based

on the best availablebiological data onthe habitatneeds andbiology of the grizzly bear. It should

bebased on the assumption that environmental diversity is necessaryforbearsurvival, especially

in years of food shortage due to environmental conditions (i.e., years of berry crop failure).

Apply CEAto each BMU to Ensure Habitat Quality is Sufficient for Maintenance of aViable

Population and to Monitor Changes in Habitat as a Result of Human Activity. (C424)

As CEA becomes applicable in the CYE,it should be applied every 5 yearsto each BMU tomonitor

changes in habitat quality and availability as a result of human activities and natural processes

such as fire and plant succession. Deviations below the desired threshold level will require

reanalysis of humanactivities in the BMU to ensure reattainment of the thresholdlevel. Primary

responsibility for CEA application lies with the ecosystem data base coordinator.

Report Management Activities Successfully used to Manage Habitat. (C425)

This should be completed as part of the ongoing business of the management agencies, the

NorthwestEcosystems Management Subcommittee, and the Recovery Coordinator.

Develop a Conservation Strategy to Outline Habitat and Population Monitoring Mechanisms

that will Continue in Force after Recovery. (C426)

This should be completed as population status data indicate attainment of the recovery targets.

This conservation strategyshould detail the habitat andpopulation monitoringstructures in the

Cabinet/Yaak Ecosystem that will be in place after removal of the species from the threatened

species list in this ecosystem. The conservation strategy should ensure that proper habitat and

population monitoring will remain in place to ensure that the species will be remain recovered

withoutprotection under the Act. The conservation strategymust be finalized and signed by all

agenciespriorto anyconsideration of delistingthe species. Its existenceshould demonstrate the

existence of adequate regulatory mechanisms as required by section 4(b) of the Act.

Recovery I Part Three • 95
CabinetlYaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Manage Populations and Habitat. (C5)

Apply the bestmanagement techniques to ensure recovered populations.

Manage Populations and Habitats Prior to Recovery on Federal Lands. (C51)

Refine Procedures for Relocation of or Aversively Conditioning Nuisance Grizzly Bears. (C511)

Develop andcoordinate proceduresto expedite the relocation of nuisance bears, andreview and

update interagency agreements. Relocate bears within 24 hours and continueto search for new

release areas. Research and develop methods to deal with problem bears, and test and develop

aversive conditioning of bears, if possible. Evaluate the effects of relocated nuisance bears on

resident bears in relocation areas. Refine the Guidelines as necessary.

Develop and Test Procedures to Relocate Bears from one Area into Another for Demographic or

Genetic Purposes. (C512)

The introductionof grizzly bears into the population in the Cabinet Mountains area is underway

andrelocation procedures are being developed and tested. Some interagency agreements have

been completed but should be reviewed annually and modified as needed. Further, specific

proceduresto increase the number of breeding-age females and the natural reproduction in the

area need to be developed. Using nuisance bears for this purpose should not be permitted.

Ecosystemswith largerpopulationsthat are not isolated breedingunitsshould be the source for

suitable bears. Responsibility forthis effortlies withtheCoordinatorin cooperationwith the U.S.

Forest Service and the MDFWP.

Apply Interagency Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines Prior to Recovery that Maintain or

Enhance Habitats. (C51 3)

Byapplying the Guidelines, agenciesshould ensure that land use activities are conducted in a

manner that is compatible with grizzly bear requirements forspace and habitat, and minimizes

the potential for human/bear conflicts. Ensure that road density guidelines are phased within

grizzly bear habitat.

Manage Populations and Habitats on Private and State Lands. (C52)

Develop and apply management guidelines prior to recovery that maintain or enhance habitats.

Recommend land use activities compatible with grizzly bear requirements for space and habitat;

minimize potential forhuman/bear conflicts. Implement cooperative efforts withState landsagencies

and privatelandowners to incorporate standards similarto theGuidelines androad densityguidelines

in orderto ensure that management actions will be sensitive to grizzly bearhabitatneeds. Cooperative

efforts between State and Federal land management agencies should facilitate this.

Develop a Conservation Strategy that Outlines all Habitat and Populations Regulatory

Mechanisms in Force after Recovery. (C53)

Develop and implement conservation strategies that outline all existing habitat and population

regulatory mechanisms for each ecosystem. Demonstrate the existence of adequate regulatory

mechanisms after recovery. Provide guidelines for the continuation of habitat and population

management upon recovery of the grizzly bearpopulation in the ecosystem through the creation of a

9e • Pa~Three/Recovery
cabinet/Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

CYE conservation strategy. This conservation strategy should detail the habitat and population

managementstructuresin the CYF that will be in place after removal of the spe~ies fromthe threatened

species list in this ecosystem. The conservation strategy should ensure that proper habitat and

population management will remain in place to ensure thatthe specieswill remain recovered without

protectionunder the Act. The conservationstrategy shouldbe finalized andsignedby all agenciesprior

to consideration of delisting the species. Its existence should demonstrate the existence of adequate

regulatory mechanisms as required by section 4(b) of the Act.

Develop and Initiate Appropriate Information and Education Programs. Reducing Humaninduced Mortalities is a Major Factor in Effecting the Recovery ofthe Grizzly Bear. (C6)

Therefore, itis crucialto the recovery effort thatthe public understand reasonsforactionsin orderto generate

tolerant or favorable attitudes toward the bear. The IGBC has appointed an I&E subcommittee to develop

education programs and disseminate information. Private conservation organizations interested in the

recovery of grizzly bears could be of assistance if they would include appropriate information in their

publications and news releases.

Evaluate Public Attitudes toward Grizzly Bear Management, Habitat Protection and

Maintenance, Land Use Restrictions, Mitigating Measures, Relocation of Bears, Hunting,

Nuisance Bear ControlActions, and HabitatAcquisition or Easement. (C61)

Public attitudes are a majorpart of the successor failureof grizzlybearrecovery efforts. Understanding

of these attitudes andthe basis forpublic sentimentisimportant. Carefully designed researchsurveys

by qualified scientists experienced in such sampling should be initiated. The basic questions and

attitudes of interest should be formulated by the management subcommittee members. The data

should be usefulin designing public outreach programsto foster public support for support recovery

programs.

Formulate Ways to Improve Public Attitudes about Grizzly Bears and the Grizzly Bear

Recovery Program. (C62)

Agencies should use the data on public attitudes to formulate public relations and I&E programs

through the respective I&E offices of each agency and the I&E subcommittee of the IGBC. Agencies

having the authority and responsibility for grizzly bear control actions should institute and carry out

I&E programsto inform citizens havingproblemswith grizzly bears of the appropriate procedures and

contacts for assistance.

Implement the Recovery Plan through Appointment of a Recovery Coordinator. (C7)

The Fish andWildlife Servicehas appointed a Recovery Coordinator to collate all relevant informationon

grizzly bears, andto coordinate and stimulate compliance andaction to implement the recovery plan. The

Coordinator should submit progress reports and conduct workshops and meetings as necessary. This

position provides a central focusfor the accumulation, exchange, and dissemination of information, and a

central pointfor multi-agency coordinationthat should aid in the judicious use of resources andmaterially

enhance the recovery effort.

Recovery I Part Three • 97
cabineVvaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Revise Appropriate Federal and State Regulations to Reflect Current Situations and Initiate

International Cooperation. (C8)

F~nsure consistent,up-to-date regulationsand maintain international cooperationandcommunication with

all other countries where brown bears are being managed.

Revise Federal and State Regulations as Necessary. (C81)

The Coordinator should initiate revision of Federal regulationsthrough the FederalRegister and CFR.

The Coordinator should assist States in regulation revisions as necessary to ensure that regulations

provide the State management authority with the ability to control bear mortality. Such authority is

necessary to ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms exist. These regulations include CFR

regulations, and nationalforest andnational parkregulationsregarding sanitation. State regulations

involvedinclude regulations on the taking of bears and management of hunting.

Coordinate and Exchange Information and Expertise with Canada and other Countries

Concerning Bear Research and Management. (C82)

This will increase information exchange of the state-of-the-art in bearresearch and management, and

will promote international cooperation and improve management and recovery efforts. All IGBC

member agencies and the Coordinator should exchange informationand expertise concerning recovery activitieswith Canadaand other countries managingbears. International cooperationis criticalto

the successof the grizzly bearrecovery effort. Four grizzly populationsspan the U.S. / Canadaborder.

The cooperationand involvement of Canadianmanagement authorities will facilitate conservation of

grizzlies in the U.S. Management authorities from British Columbia and Alberta need to be full

participantsin all aspectsof the recovery program. Research conducted inCanada on grizzly bearsis

applicable to situationsin the U.S.; cooperationin funding such research, cooperative effortsinvolving

personnelfrom both countries, and sharing of research results is vital. Joint U.S/Canadian management of bears and bear habitat is necessary for the four ecosystems that lie along the U.S./Canada

border. Cooperative internationalmanagement plans should be developed for each ecosystem along

theborderincorporating concerns about the continuedmaintenance of habitats andpopulations. Such

plans should be developed andaccepted by agencies on both sides of the border.

International communication on bears andbear management is necessaryto the successof the recovery

effort. Many of the management problemsand considerationsimpacting the threatened grizzly bears

in the U.S.—suchas insularpopulations andsmall populationsize conflictingwith timber harvestand

livestockgrazing,genetic concerns relating to smallpopulation size,movement of bearsfromone area

to another, management of sport hunting, and public attitudes—are also impacting many species of

bears in Europe and Asia. Sharing information on management approaches and techniques will

facilitate recovery in the U.S. as well as assist managers and researchers in other countries. The

Recovery Coordinator should facilitate cooperation and international communication, and provide

information gained to managers and researchers as necessary.

98 • Part Three! Recovery
Provincial 

Forest 

Figure 11 
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Subgoal: For theSelkirk GrizzlyBearRecovery Zone (SE), sixfemaleswith cubsover a running 6-

year average both inside the recoveryzone andwithin a 10 mile area immediately surrounding the

recoveryzone, includingCanada; 7ofthe10 BMU’son the U.S.side occupied byfemaleswithyoung

from a running 6-year sum of observations; and known, human-caused mortality not to exceed

4 percent of the population estimate based on the most recent 3-yearsum offemales with cubs;

furthermore, no more than 30 percent of this 4 percent mortality limit shall be females. These

mortality limits cannot be exceeded during any 2 consecutive yearsfor recovery to be achieved.

Presently grizzly bearnumbers are so small in this ecosystem thatthe mortality goal shall be zero

known human-caused mortalities.

Establish the Population Objective for Recovery, and Identify the Limiting Factors. (Si)

The Selkirk area in the U.S. is the southern tip of the SelkirkMountain Range that extends northward into

Canada (fig. 11). The area of the U.S. portionislimited by the fact that the Selkirk range ends approximately

23 mi (60 kin) south of the border. Because there is not sufficient area for a viable grizzly bear population

on the U.S. side, andbecause the bears in the area regularly move across the border, aportionof the Selkirk

Range on the Canadian sidewasincluded in the designated SE. The inclusion of thisCanadian area brought

the size of the SEto the approximately2,000mi2 (5,180 kin2) necessaryto support aminimum population of

90bears. Itisrecognized thatthe SEis contiguous with grizzly bearhabitat northward into Canada, andthat

the 90 bears projected as the goalin this recovery zone are a subset of amuch larger population. Bears can

and do move between the recovery zone and contiguous habitat to the north. The population goal for the

recovery zone is set to ensure sufficientbears existthroughout the area to ensure acontinued population in

the U.S. portionof thisrecovery zone. All recovery goals will be revisedas necessary or as new information

becomes available.

Recovery targets for the SE were developed using the following assumptions and methods:

1. Recovery of the SE grizzly bear population depends upon verification that the population meets the

criteria for arecovered population. A recovered population is defined as onethat (a) can sustain the

existing level of known and unknown, unreported, human-causedmortality that exists within the SE

and (b) is well distributed throughout the recovery zone in the SE.

2. Assuming that a minimum of 90 bears is areasonable goal based on the size of the ecosystem, and

because it is contiguous with grizzly population in Canada, the target for the minimum number of

unduplicated females with cubs on a running 6-year average is six verified reports, both inside the

recovery zone andwithin alO mile areaimmediately surroundingthe recoveryzone, includingCanada.

The target was derived usingthe following facts andassumptions about the grizzly bear population

in the SE:

(a) A running 6-year average of unduplicated females with cubs is based on a 3-year reproductive

cycle,and will allow at least 2 years when each adultt femak~ alive can be reported with cubs. A

running 6-year tallywill stabilize the average and make it less senslitive to changes in annual

reporting levels and sightability.

Recovery I Part Three • 101
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

(b) On average, 33 percent of adult females (at least 5 years old)will be with cubs each year. This is

based on an average 3-year reproductive interval for adult females. The 6-year average number

of females with cubs can be multiplied by three to estimate the number of adult females in the

population.

(c) The reporting efficiency for females with cubsis 60 percent. Thus,of all females with cubsin the

SE in a given year, on average 60 percent will be detected/seen and reported. This is a

conservative estimate of females with cubs. Because of the forested nature of much of the SE, the

reporting efficiency most likely is lower than 60 percent. Therefore, the calculated minimum

number of females with cubs will underestimate the actual number. This processis designed to

err on the side of the bear.

(d) The grizzly population in the SE is estimated to be 48 percent adults and 52 percent subadults

(Weilgus et al. 1993).

(e) The sex ratio of adultsis estimated to be approximately onemale:twofemales, and forsubadults

is estimated to be one male:one female (Weilgus et al. 1993).

(f) The proportion of adult females in the population is 33 percent (Weilgus etal. 1993).

The target of at least 6 females with cubs issufficient to indicate a minimum population of at least 91

bears (using method of Knight et al. 1988) (Appendix C):

6 females with cubs seen divided by 0.6 (sightability correction factor) = 10 total females with cubs;

10 x 3 = 30 adult females; 30 divided by 0.33 (the estimated proportion of adult females in the Selkirk

population, Weilgus et al. 1993) = a minimum of 91 grizzly bears in the SE.

3. There is arelationship betweenthe sustainable human-causedmortality levels,recruitmentof animals

into the population, andthe number of unduplicated females with cubs. Therefore, the estimate of the

number of females with cubs is important in managing mortality.

4. Human-caused grizzlymortalities will continue atsome long-term rate due to inevitable interactions

betweenbears and people throughout the ecosystem. These mortality levelswill probably increase as

the grizzly population increases and bear-human interactionsincrease.

5. Unknown, unreported, human-caused mortality occurs each year atsome level.

6. The maximum human-caused mortality level that can be sustained without population declineby a

grizzly bear population with the above assumed characteristics is 6 percent when no more than

30 percent of these mortalities are females (Harris 1984).

7. The present absolute minimumpopulation estimate forthe SEis atleast26-36bears within the recovery

zone (Weilgus etal. 1993). Insufficientmonitoringdata is available to report thenumberof femaleswith

cubs at this time. Because of low estimated population and uncertainty in estimates, the current

human-caused mortality goal to facilitate recovery of the population is zero. In reality, this goal may

not be realized because human-bear conflicts are likely to occur atsome level within the ecosystem.

Management should strive to prevent all human-caused mortality in the SE.

102 • PartThreelRecovery
SelkIrk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

8. In the future, to facilitate recovery of the population as population growth isrealizedand to allowfor

both error in minimum population estimates and for unknown, unreported mortality, the humancausedmortality limit for theSE population will be 4 percent, 30 percent of thislimit may be females.

In orderto account for changesin population size and to establish alink betweenpopulation size and

known, human-caused mortality, the mortality limit will be recalculated annually using the most

recent3-year sumof females with cubs as described inY1. The lead forcompletion of these calculations

shall be the Coordinator of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service working in cooperation with other

agencies. This mortality level is conservative because:

(a) it is applied to aminimum population estimate thatis based on the number of females with cubs

seen in the SE correctedby a conservative sightability factor (as detailedin 51.). It isrecognized

that the actual population size is higher than the minimum estimate; and

(b) according to Harris (1984), a grizzly bear population can sustain 6 percent human-caused

mortality without experiencing a decline in that population.

For the present SE population estimate, the annual goal is zero known,human-causedmortality. The

femalemortality limitwill remain zero until the threekey parametersindicateaminimumpopulation

of at least 90 grizzly bears. Management should strive to prevent all human-caused mortality within

and surrounding the SE. If a control action is deemed necessary, the population will probably not

experience overall decline ifhuman-caused mortality remains less than4 percent. A population of 86

grizzly bears could theoretically sustain a total of three mortalities or one female mortality annually

(86 x 0.04 = 3, and 3 x 0.30 = 1).However, these calculations do not accountfor demographic, genetic,

or other problems that can be dramatically amplified in such small populations.

Determine Population Conditions at which the Species is Viable and Self-sustaining. (Sil)

Reevaluate and refine population criteria as new information becomes available. The grizzly bear

population in the SE will be viablewhenmonitoringefforts indicatethatrecruitment and mortality are

at levels supporting a stable or increasing population, and reproducing females are distributed

throughout the recovery zone. The population will be judged as meeting recovery population

requirements when, as determined through systematic monitoring throughout the recovery zone, it

meets each of the following criteria:

(a) The average numberof unduplicated femaleswith cubsis aminimumofsixannuallyona running

6-year average both inside the recovery zone andwithin a10 mile area immediately surrounding

the recovery zone, including Canada.

(b) The distribution of family groups of grizzly bearsrepresentedby female grizzly bears accompaniedby cubs, yearlings, or 2-year oldsis reported in 7 of the 10 BMU’s in the U.S. portionof the

recovery zone on a running 6-year sum of observations. This is equivalent to verified evidence

of at least one grizzly bear female with young within 7 of 10 BMU’s over a 6-year period. It is

recognized thatBMU’s or their equivalent should be designated in the Canadian portion of the

SE. This should be accomplished through a cooperative effort between U.S. and Canadian

authorities.

RecoverylPartThree 103
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

(c) The known human-causedmortality level does not exceed 4 percent of the population estimate

based on the most recent 3-year running sum of females with cubs, minus known adult female

mortality. Additionally, nn more than 30 percent of the known human-caused mortality limit

shallbe females. Howevc! t iemalemortality goalforthisecosystem is zerountil the threekey

parameters monitored indicate a population of at least 90 bears.

Determine Population Monitoring Methods and Criteria. (Sill)

maintenance of a secure and robust grizzly bear population will require ongoing careful

~initoring. This monitoring should provide data to allow reasonable assurance that the

population issecure. The greaterthe number of parameters monitored,the greaterthe assurance

that the information isrepresentative of the status of the population.

Withthisinmind, asystemhasbeendeveloped to monitorawide range of parameters, with three

being of primary importance. These include unduplicated number of females with cubs seen

annually, the distribution of females with young throughout the ecosystem, and the annual

number of known human-causedmortalities. Other factors alsoshould bemonitored to increase

the confidence in the information,but these threeparameters will be the keycriteria used to judge

the status of the population. The target distribution by females with young is designed to

demonstrate adequate dispersion of the reproductive cohort within the recovery zone. Distribution of reproducing females also will provide evidence of adequate habitat management,

assuming that successful reproduction is an indicator of habitat sufficiency. Lastly, adequate

distribution of family groups indicates future occupancy of these areas because grizzly bear

offspring, especially female offspring, tend to occupy habitat within or near the home range of

their mother after weaning.

Establish Reporting Procedures and Systems to Gather and Evaluate Information on Populations.

(S112)

Allcooperatingagency personnel should reportfemales withcubs andfemales withyoung on the

standard formasstated in theGuidelines(U.S. Forest Service1985). Agency personnel shouldbe

assignedto andresponsible foroneor moreBMU’s to ensure consistencyin collection of reporting

information. It should be the responsibility of personnel assignedto BMU’s to submitan annual

report of the number of verified females with cubs fortheir BMU’s to the appropriate reporting

point by December 1 for compilation.

Agency representativesshould reviewall reports, andtrackdata and eliminateduplicate reports

at an annual meeting. Methods to eliminate duplicate reports should follow Knight and

Blanchard (1993). Arunning 6-yearaverage of unduplicated females with cubs will be calculated

using the annual reporting data. All unduplicated females with cubs outside the recovery zone

line but within 10 airline milesof the line shallbe countedas part of the total numberseen within

the recovery zone during that year. Observations of females with youngwillbe plotted annually

for arunning 6-year cumulative total for determination of occupancy.

Determine Current Population Conditions. (S12)

The present grizzly bear population in the SE is far below the levels necessary for viability. It is

estimated thatthe population consistsof atleast26-36 grizzlybears within therecovery zone, including

bothU.S. and Canadian portions (Weilgus etal. 1993). However, detailedmonitoring of sightings of

females with cubs and family groups has been limited. Research currently underway in the area is

104 • PartmreelRecovery
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

determining productivity and distribution data necessary for abetter understanding of thispopulation. As of 1992,two femalegrizzlybears havebeencapturedandmarked. A total of 28 differentgrizzly

bears have been captured and collared. Of particular interest is the movement of bears across the

border, especially the possible southward dispersal of subadults from areas of higher density in

contiguous northern areas. As research proceeds, there should be a better understanding of this

population anditsstatus. Additionally,researchers areworkingto coordinate the reporting of females

with cubs between the Idaho Fishand Game Department, the U.S. Forest Service, Idaho Department

of Lands, Washington Department of Wildlife, and officials in British Columbia.

Identify the Human-related Population Limiting Factors if Present Populations Differ from

Desired. (S13)

Mortality from direct and indirect sources within and surrounding the recovery zone must be

addressed if populations are to recover.

Identify Sources of Direct Mortality. (S131)

Sources of direct mortality including illegal hunting, poaching, vandal killing, and malicious

killing. Accidentalkillings are aresult of mistaken identitybyblackbear hunters. Private citizen

control by livestockoperators, apiarists, outfitters, hunter defense of quarry, andresort operators

forprotection of property also mayresult in direct mortality. Accidental deaths resultfrom road

kills (automobiles, trains, etc.) or handling error when bears are captured for management or

research. Direct mortality also may occur during agency control of nuisance bears for livestock

conflicts, other property damage,or life-threateningsituations. Live removal of agrizzly to azoo

or another ecosystemas part of nuisance bearmanagement alsois consideredamortality because

individual relocated bears are no longer part of the population. Mortality occasionally results

from actions of private citizens for self-defense or defense of others.

Identify Sources of Indirect Mortality. (S132)

Sources of indirect mortality are those actions that bring bears and people into conflict such as

road use, land development and recreation. These actions include but are not limited to road

construction, livestock grazing operations, timber harvest, mining, water development, energy

exploration/development, recreation, and humandevelopment of conflicting enterprises (subdivisions, dog kennels, fish farms, pig farms, boneyards, garbage dumps, etc.).

Determine Effects of Human Activities on Bears and Bear Habitat and Incorporate the Results

into Management Plans and Decisions on Human Activities. (S133)

Complete research to document the effects of timber harvest, road use, oil and gas exploration,

and recreation on behavior, physiological condition, population distribution, density, food

habits, home range,reproduction,survivorship,and denning activities. RevisetheGuidelines as

necessary as thisinformation is obtained.

Redress Population Limiting Factors. (S2)

Develop ways to minimize actions within and surrounding the recovery zone that limit populations.

Recovery! Part Three • 105
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Reduce Sources of Direct Mortality. (S21)

To expedite species recovery, the recommended annual human-induced grizzly bear mortality goal

within and surrounding the recovery zone is zero. This is necessaryfor the presentbecause of the low

population of grizzly bears within this ecosystem. This mortality goal maynot be achieved because

some level of human-bear conflictwithin the ecosystemisinevitable. Reachingrecovery goals will be

facilitated if all human-caused mortality within and outside the recovery zone does not exceed

4 percent of the estimated population based on the mostrecent 3-year sum of females with cubs and

no more than 30 percent of this mortality limit is female (see SI. above).

Known human-causedmortalities in excess of the level sustainableatagiven number of unduplicated

females with cubs could result in population decline while mortalities below thislevel would likely

result in population increase. As the grizzly population increases, the number of sustainable known

human-induced mortalities also increases. The known number of females with cubs will be used to

calculate what is believed to be a minimum population estimate; therefore, the projected number of

sustainable mortalities (less than4 percent of this minimum population) is conservative.

However, at thistime there are insufficient numbers of bears in the U.S. portion of thisarea to support

even lowlevels of human-causedmortality. Management should strive to prevent all human-caused

mortality. Human-causedmortalities in the Canadian portionof this ecosystem aremore sustainable

due to the contiguous occupied habitats. However, maximum potentialforrecoverywill be achieved

withminimalnumbersof human-caused mortalities within the Canadianportion of the recovery zone.

Reduce Illegal Killing. (S211)

Use all methods possible to minimize illegal kills.

Coordinate State, Federal, and Canadian Law EnforcementEfforts. (S2111)

Provide aconcerted lawenforcement effort by designating a specially trained law enforcement team coordinatedby the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service to minimize the illegal kill of

grizzly bears. One or more persons representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Forest Service, State of Idaho, State of Washington, and British Columbia should be

appointed. Each member should receive specialized training to work on illegal kills of

grizzly bears. The team should be trained initially by biologists in such matters as

distribution, home ranges of identifiable bears, movements by season, mating habits,

current location of radio-marked bears andother biological information thatmaybe helpful

to the team.

All incidents of grizzly bear kills, suspectedillegal activities, and rumors of killsshould be

communicated betweenthe enforcementteamand their respective agencieson a daily basis

or as often as is practical.

The enforcement team leadershould keep all members of the enforcement team informed

andshould organizecoordinationmeetings as needed. Specialemphasisshould be direded

at covert operations that may be operating commercially.

The enforcement team should operate through an interstate, interagency agreementunder

the direction of the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service.

106 • Part Three/Recovery
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Itisimperative thatthe group leaderestablish a line of communication and rapportwith all

field personnel, field office staff, and local law enforcement agenciesin order that he/she

may be notffiedimmediately on a violation or threat of aviolation.

Public assistance should be solicited in reporting suspectedor knownillegal kills. Persons

furnishing information that leads to a findingof civil violation or aconviction of acriminal

violation of 50 CFR 17.40regarding grizzly bears can be rewardedup to one-half of the fine

or civil penalty.

States havingtoll-free numbersfor reporting violations or forinformation should publicize

their numbers as means of reporting grizzly problems and grizzly bear deaths.

Reduce lilegal Killing by Big Game Hunters and Mistaken Identity Killing by Black Bear Hunters.

(S2112)

Idaho and Washington should continue to make information about handling and storing

gameavailable to big gamehunters to reduce the likelihood of the carcassbeing claimedby

agrizzly. Information should continueto beprovided to allblackbearhuntersto assistthem

in distinguishing between black and grizzly bears. Idaho and Washington should issue

specialwarnings to blackbearhunters using areasfrequented by grizzly bears. Black bear

hunting regulations should be modified as appropriate to reduce or eliminate areas of

significant conflictsor time periods of conflict. Special attentionshouldbe given to evaluate

and eliminate as necessarybear baiting in recovery zones.

Investigate and Prosecute Illegal Killing of Grizzly Bears. (S2113)

The enforcement team should investigate accidental grizzly bear kills and recommend

prosecution when appropriate.

Reduce Accidental Deaths. (S21 14)

Minimize activities that result in attraction of bears to sites of conflict and management

mistakes that might result in losses.

increase Efforts to Clean up Carrion and otherAttractants in Association with Roads, Human

Habitation, and Developed Areaswithin Recovery Zones. (S21 141)

All agenciesshould evaluate andimprovewarning signs along highways androadsin

high-usegrizzlybearareas. All agencies should increase efforts to clean up carrionand

other attractants along highways andotherroutes within occupiedgrizzly bear range.

Reduce Losses due to Mishandling ofBears during Research and Management Actions through

Development of a Bear Handiing Manual. (S21142)

To reduce losses duetomishandling ofbears(e.g., an overdose of immobilizing drugs

or improper handling), only experienced personnel certified by a sponsoring unit

having the required permits and knowledge in the applicationof capture techniques,

immobilizing drugs, transportation of drugged animals, and scientific data collection

should handle grizzly bears. Only the safest, most effective drugs available should be

used. A detailed manual for trapping, immobilizing, transporting, and handling

grizzly bears has been prepared for use by all agencies as a training and reference

manual.

Recovery! Part Three • 107
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Reduce Losses due to Predator and Rodent Control. (S21 143)

Agenciesresponsible for licensing, conducting, or in any way overseeing predator or

rodent damage control programs using toxic substances in occupied grizzly bear

habitatshould use themost selective (but effective) rodenticide available, anduse it in

lowest effective dosage. Poisonbaitshould be used only under the onsite supervision

of a certified applicator. Poisoning within grizzly bear habitatshould be delayed as

long as possible into July to minimize the potential for grizzly bears to consume

poisoned rodents or bait.

Agency control on Federallandsshould be in accordancewith 50CFR17.40. For grizzly

bearsinvolvedin livestockconflicts, animaldamage control officersshould follow the

Guidelines and otherinteragency agreements.

Ensure that Control of Nuisance Bears is AccomplishedAccording to 50 CFR 17.40 and the

Guidelines. (S21144)

Allmanagement control actionsshouldbe carried out according to theGuidelines. The

only legal citizen control of a grizzly bear is that related to self-defense or defense of

others. The law enforcement team should carefully investigate every case of grizzly

bear mortality alleged to be self-defense or defense of others.

Reduce Losses by Developing and Implementing Public Education and Awareness Programs.

(521145)

Accidental mortalities and nuisance bear mortalities are often the result of lack of

informationabout the effects of human behavioron grizzly bears suchas sanitationin

residential areas and back-country areas, as well as the behavior of back-country

visitors. Agenciesshould cooperate in the developmentand implementation of public

education programs.

Appoint a Grizzly Bear Mortality Coordinator. (S212)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has appointed an employee of MDFWP as grizzly bear

mortality coordinator to tabulate annual bear mortality for this ecosystem and ensure that all

cooperating agencies and the public have current mortality data. The coordinator should

maintainkeycontacts with all agenciesand keep detailedrecords of all conditions surrounding

each grizzly bear death. A standard formmeeting the needs of all agenciesshould be prepared.

Identify and Reduce Sources of Indirect Mortality. (S22)

Ongoing humanactions in grizzly habitatcontribute to bear-human conflictsthat often result in bear

deaths. Management of these activitiesin consideration of the needs of bears should reduce indirect

mortality.

Make Domestic Livestock Grazing Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat RequIrements. (S221)

Encourage consideration of grizzly habitat needs regarding grazingon State and private lands.

On Federallands, theGuidelines should be applied tomake grazingoperations compatible with

grizzly bearspacial andseasonal habitatrequirements. On State and private lands,agenciesand

field personnel of agenciesinvolvedin grizzly bearmanagementshould communicate the intent

of the Guidelines as a cooperative extension effort.

108 PartThree/Recovery
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Make Timber Harvest and Roadbuilding Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Requirements.

(5222)

Encourage consideration of grizzly habitat needs and road densityguidelines relating to timber

harvest and roadbuilding on State and Private lands. On Federal lands, the Guidelines should

be applied, and road density guidelines should be phased in to make timber operations

compatible with grizzly bear spacial and habitat requirements. On State and private lands,

agencies andfield personnel of agenciesinvolvedin grizzly bearmanagement should communicate the intent of the Guidelines and road density guidelines as a cooperative extension effort.

Make Mining and Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Compatible with Grizzly Bear

Habitat Requirements. (S223)

Encourage consideration of grizzly habitatneeds androad densityguidelines relating tomining

and oil and gas exploration on State and private lands. On Federal lands or where subsurface

rights are under Federal jurisdiction, the Guidelines should be applied, and road density

guidelines should be phased in tomake mining and energy operations compatible with grizzly

bearspacial and habitatrequirements. On State and private lands, agenciesand field personnel

of agenciesinvolved in grizzly bear management should communicate the intent of the ‘Guidelines and road density guidelines as a cooperative extension effort.

Make Recreation on Federal Lands Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Needs. (S224)

On Federal landstheGuidelinesshould be applied, androad densityshould be phased in tomake

recreationactivities compatible with grizzly bearspacial and habitat requirements.

Coordinate with State and County Governments to Make Land Development and Land Use

Decisions Within the Recovery Zones Compatible with GrizZly Bear Habitat Needs. (S225)

Landmanagement agencies,State regulatory agencies,countycommissioner, and county zoning

boards should be encouraged to give consideration to the needs of grizzly bears in any actions

requiring their approval. When homes,summerhomes, cabins,camps,farm operations, etc., with

attendant dog kennels, pig farms, garbage dumps, and livestock disposal sites are allowed to

invade the habitat occupiedby grizzly bears, theywill directly or indirectly effectively reduce the

space and habitat necessary for the bears’ survival. For private lands not subject to the above

restrictions,wildlifemanagers should giveconsideration to purchase,lease, or easementifhabitat

components are necessary to survival of the species.

Monitor the Cumulative Effects of Management Actions in Grizzly Bear Habitat. (5226)

Determine the cumulative effects of all or anycombination of the actions described above (S221-

S225) that may adversely impact grizzly bears through application of the CEM on an ongoing

basis. Past adverse impacts on the bears and their habitat must be a major consideration in the

evaluation of any new action. New actions must be evaluated on a regional basis to avoid the

cumulative effects of several well planned individual actions impacting bears from too many

directions simultaneously. Historical records indicate that at some point in time, probably

associated with the degree of stress, grizzly bears will no longer use certain portions of their

former range. Therefore, each new action has the potential of being “the last straw” from the

standpoint of the bear, and every effort must be made to evaluate each new actionwith respect

to formerand future actions.

Recovery / Part Three • 109
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Coordinate, Monitor, and Report on Activities Relating to Redressing Population Pimiting

Factors and Monitor Compliance with the Recovery Plan. (S23)

This should be accomplished through the activitiesof the Coordinator andthe managementsubcommittees of the IGBC, both of which should operate in close coordination and communication with

BritishColumbia authorities. Actions shouldbe takenby themanagement committees as necessaryto

address needs andto ensure implementationof the recovery planandthe applicationof theGuidelines.

Determine the Habitat and Space Required for the Achievement of the Grizzly Bear

Population Goal. (S3)

Carefuldefinitionof the recovery zones will allowagencies and the public to knowwhere grizzly bears and

grizzly habitat will be managed. Information on range and the biology of bears as well as the nature and

quality of habitatis necessaryto ensure that habitatis properlymanaged, andthat the habitatdelineated has

sufficient quality and quantity to support a viable population.

Define the Recovery Zone within which the Grizzly Bear will be Managed. (S31)

The recovery zone for the SE was delineated by members of theNorthwest Ecosystem Management

Subcommittee of the IGBC and modified in 1987 by the addition of 162 square miles to the area

delineated in the 1982 Recovery Plan (fig. 11). The recovery zone was defined on the basis of the best

available information on bear and bear habitat distribution and needs for a viable, well distributed

population. The additional area was added after radio-collaredbears were found to use springrange

thatwas outside the original lines. Present boundaries will be defined as the SE, and should be

corrected and revisedas new data become available.

Changes in the recovery zone lines can be made by a committee appointed by the ecosystem

managementsubcommittee consisting of representativesof the State wildlife agency,the U.S. Fishand

WildlifeService, and the involvedlandmanagement agencies. Additions to the recovery zone require

thatasignificant area ofseasonallyimportanthabitat exists outside the existingrecovery zone line, and

thatitbe usedby grizzly bearsthatlive primarily within the recovery zone. The area to be added must

have significant value to the survival of the bears within the recovery zone. Changesin the recovery

zone lines should be made using the best biological information available.

Itisrecognized that grizzly bears will occur outside the recovery zone linesandthatthe mere presence

of bears outside the recovery zone line is not sufficient reason for changing the line. The area to be

added must be of significant biological value to bears residing inside the line. These values must be

demonstrated by habitat mapping andbear movement data. Any changes to the recovery zone line

should be approved by the ecosystem management subcommittee and the IGBC, and should be

subsequently added to the nextdraft of the recovery plan.

IdentifyAgency Management Stratifications within the Recovery Zone including the Delineation

of BMU’s and Management Situations 1,11, or Ill as Defined in the Guidelines. (S32)

The BMU’s should be defined on the basis of units suitable forapplication of the CEA. Management

situations should be defined according to the Guidelines. Correct delineation of the management

situation areas within the recovery zone as necessary as new information becomes available. It is

recognized that the Guidelines do not apply in Canada. Efforts to communicate the intent of the

110 PartThree/Recovery
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

GuidelinestoBritishColumbia officialsshould bemadethrough cooperative efforts via theNorthwest

Ecosystems Management Subcommittee.

Conduct Research to Determine the Extent of Grizzly Bear Range. (S33)

This researchis being conducted by cooperating agencies.

Conduct Research to Determine Habitat Use,Food Habits, Home Range Size, and Seasonal

Habitat Preference and Incorporate into Habitat Management Programs. (S34)

These data should be used to ensure that habitat values are availablewithin the grizzly bear recovery

zone, and that ongoing management actions do not significantly degrade these habitat values.

Information on behavior, population distribution, density, food habits, home range, reproduction,

survivorship, and denning activities has been gathered since 1983 by researchers from the Idaho

Department of Fish and Game, the Washington Department of Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the British Columbia Wildlife Branch, and university researchers.

These data are presented in peer-reviewedjournals and in annual project reports.

It is crucial that information on the grizzly bears’ biological requirements be correlated with habitat

conditions. Of particular relevance are habitatfactorsrelating to ecosystem dynamicsthat maylimit

the range or food availability of bears. These factors can include climate change, fire effects, plant

phenology and habitat availability changes, and growth patterns of major food species. Detailed

information on these factorsshould be gathered as soon as possible and annualrecording of patterns

should be initiated in orderto recognize habitatdynamics changes as theymightoccur. This research

and evaluation should be conducted by cooperating agencies. Results are to be used by management

agenciesto judge the effectiveness of management policies. Policiesshould be adjusted as necessary

when research demonstrates the need to do so. One area of special concern is the effect of fire

management in grizzly bearhabitat. Natural fires can improve grizzly bear habitatby increasing the

quality and quantity of food source. Fire suppressioncan reduce food availability and reduce habitat

quality.

Conduct Research to Determine the Relationship between Habitat Values, Physiological

Condition of Bears, and the Ability of the Habitat to Sustain a Population Density Necessary

to Achieve Viable Population Size. (S35)

Thisresearch isbeing conducted by cooperatingagencies. Resultsto be usedby management agencies

to judge the effectiveness of management policies. Policies should be adjusted as necessary when

research demonstrates the need to do so.

Conduct Research to Determine the Effects of Various Road Densities on Grizzly Bear Habitat

Use and Human-caused Bear Mortality. (S36)

Thisresearch is being conducted by cooperating agencies. Resultsto be usedby management agencies

to judge the effectiveness of management policies. Policies should be adjusted as necessary when

research demonstrates the need to do so.

Recovery/Part Three • 111
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Conduct Research on the Effects of Habitat Fragmentation Caused by Human Activities, such

as Modification of Cover Type, Roadbuilding, and Human Residences, in order to Assess the

Possibility of Linkage between Grizzly Bear Ecosystems and between Habitat Tracts within

Ecosystems. (S37)

This research is being conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with various

Federaland Statelandmanagement agencies,local governments, andthe public. Resultsmaybe useful

to developing long-term cooperative land management planning to indudeboth public and private

sectors.

Evaluate the Applicability of PVA to Grizzly Bear Recovery. (S38)

The PVA are based on theoretical biological models of aspecies reproduction, survival, and genetic

interchange and stability through time. The PVA studies havebeen utilized sometimesin identifying

possible population numbers that may contribute to long-term species survival. The applicability of

aPVA studyto grizzly bear recovery should be evaluated.

Monitor Populations and Habitats. (S4)

Population monitoring is necessaryto determine the status of the population and to assess the success of

conservation efforts associated with recovery. An increasing population validates ongoing management

efforts, while a decreasing population indicates a failure to addressproblemsfacing the population.

Monitor Populations Before, During, and After Recovery. (S41)

Develop and apply techniques to ensure the population is carefully monitored.

Develop and Conduct an Intensive Monitoring System to Measure theAnnual Number of

Females with Cubs, Family Groups, and Number of Human-caused Mortalities. (S411)

The method is detailed in Sli and 5111.

Develop a System of Responsibilities to Collate, Analyze, and Report Annual Information on

Population Data. (S412)

The system is detailedin S112.

Standardize Observation Report Forms and Methods, and Develop Training Methods for all

Persons involved in Reporting Sightings of Females with Cubs and Family Groups. (S413)

Reporting system detailedin S112. Training methods should involve identification materials to

enable individualsinvolved to be able to identify the bear species seen or to be able to report

unknownspecies. Trainingmethods should be distributed to all agency reporting personneland

should be formallypresented in trainingsessions to seasonal andstaff personnel atthe beginning

of each field season in order to ensure quality observation data.

Monitor Relocated Bears in order to Assess the Success of Nuisance Bear Management. (S414)

The probability of having nuisance bears atsuch lowbear densitiesis slight; however, if a bear

should become a nuisance such bears should be relocated and monitored.

112 • Part Three/Recovery
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Monitor Habitats Before, During, and After Recovery. (S42)

Develop and apply techniques to ensure the habitat is carefully monitored.

Develop and Apply the CEA Process to Allow Monitoring of Effects of Management Actions

over a Large GeographicArea of Habitat. (S421)

The CEA should be completed,thoroughly evaluated, and refined. If applicable, it can be applied

to assistin judgingthe suitability of ongoing management actions. Development of CEA requires

five phases (1) data base compilation, (2) software development, (3) testing/validation, (4)

development of mortality submodel, and (5) developmentof thresholds. Biologists’ interpretation of data andoutput shouldbe acontinual part of theCEA. The CEA is currently at the testing/

validation stagewheredatabases are complete. Results of CEAtesting andvalidation in the YGBE

will facilitate its use in other grizzly bearecosystems.

Complete Habitat Mapping of the Recovery Zone and Digitize these Data so they are Available

for Use by the CEA. (S422)

Habitat mapping should be standardized and completed in a format compatiblewith the CEA.

Updating of these habitat maps should be programmed every 5 years, or as necessary.

Establish a Threshold of Minimal Habitat Values to be Maintained within each CEA Unit in order

to Ensure that Sufficient Habitat isAvailable to Support a Viable Population. (S423)

The threshold valueor series of values are the benchmarks used in conjunctionwith the CEA to

judge that ongoing actions in grizzly habitat have not degraded the value and/ or availability of

the habitat to bears. The objective of determining thresholds is not to establish and maintain

minimal values, but to establish a measure of the level of ongoing change in the habitat.

Management should attempt to manage habitat above threshold values. Maintenance of habitat

values above the threshold values allows greater environmental flexibility for bears and will

benefit recovery.

Threshold values are unknownat thistime. Development of the threshold value shouldbe based

on the best availablebiological data on the habitat needs andbiologyof the grizzly bear. Itshould

be based on the assumption that environmental diversity is necessaryforbearsurvival, especially

in years of food shortage due to environmental conditions (i.e., years of berry crop failure).

Apply CEAto each BMU to Ensure Habitat Ouality Is Sufficient for Maintenance of a Viable

Population and to Monitor Changes in Habitat as a Result of HumanActivity. (S424)

AsCEA becomes applicable in the SE, it shouldbe applied every 5 yearsto each BMU to monitor

changes in habitat quality and availability as a result of human activities and natural processes

such as fire and plant succession. Deviations below the desired threshold level will require

reanalysisof humanactivities in theBMU to ensure reattainmentof the threshold level. Primary

responsibility for CEA application lies with the ecosystem database coordinator.

Report ManagementActivities Successfully used to Manage Habitat. (S425)

This should be completed as part of the ongoing business of the management agencies, the

Northwest Ecosystems Management Subcommittee, and the Recovery Coordinator.

Recovery/PartThree • 113
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Develop a Conservation Strategy to Outline Habitat and Population Monitoring Mechanisms

that will Continue in force after Recovery. (S426)

This should be completed as population status data indicateattainment of the recovery targets.

This conservation strategyshould detail the habitat andpopulation monitoring structures in the

SE that will be in place after removal of the species from the threatened species list in this

ecosystem. The conservation strategyshould ensure that proper habitatand population monitoring will remainin place to ensure that the specieswill remain recovered withoutprotection under

the Act. The conservation strategy must be finalized and signed by all agencies prior to any

consideration of delistingthe species. Its existence should demonstratethe existence of adequate

regulatory mechanisms as required by section 4(b) of the Act.

Manage Populations and Habitat. (S5)

Apply the best management techniques to ensure recovered populations.

Manage Populations and Habitats prior to Recovery on Federal Lands. (S51)

Refine Procedures for Relocating or Aversively Conditioning Nuisance Grizzly Bears. (S511)

Develop and coordinate procedures to expedite the relocation of nuisance bears and review and

update interagency agreements. Relocate bears within 24 hours and continue search for new

release areas. Research and develop methods to deal with problem bears, and test and develop

aversive conditioning of bears, if possible. Evaluate the effects of relocated nuisance bears on

residentbears in relocation areas. Refine the Guidelines as necessary.

Develop and Test Procedures to Relocate Bears from one Area intoAnother for Demographic or

Genetic Purposes. (S512)

Develop and coordinate interagency agreements and procedures for the introduction of grizzly

bears into areas where the populations are in need of additional bears for demographic and/ or

genetic reasons. This procedure is necessary to increase the number of breeding femalesin some

areas such as the CYE. Using nuisance bears for this purpose should not be permitted. Sources

of bears should be ecosystems with larger populations that are not isolated breeding units.

Responsibility for this effort lies with the Coordinator in cooperation with other agencies.

Cooperation of agencies involved in management in the SE, as necessary, should aid the

development of these techniques.

Apply Interagency Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines prior to Recovery that Maintain or

Enhance Habitats. (S513)

By applying the Guidelines agencies should ensure that land use activities are conducted in a

manner that is compatible with grizzly bear requirements for space and habitat, and minimizes

the potential for human/bear conflicts. Ensure that road density guidelines are phased within

grizzly bear habitat.

Manage Populations and Habitats on Private and State Lands. (S52)

Develop and apply management guidelines prior to recovery that maintain or enhance habitats.

Recommend land use activities compatible with grizzly bear requirements for space and habitat;

minimize potentialforhuman/bear conflicts. Implement cooperative efforts withState lands agencies

114 • Part Three / Recovery
Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

andprivate landownersto incorporatestandards similarto theGuidelines and roaddensityguidelines

in orderto ensure that management actions willbe sensitive to grizzlybear habitatneeds. Cooperative

efforts between State and Federalland management agencies should facilitate this. This is especially

importantin the SE because of the large area of State-managed habitatwithin the recovery zone.

Develop and Implement a Conservation Strategy that Outlines all Habitat and Population

Regulatory Mechanisms in Force after Recovery. (S53)

Demonstrate the existence of adequate regulatory mechanisms after recovery. Provide guidelines for

the continuation of habitat andpopulation management upon recovery of the grizzly bearpopulation

in the ecosystem through the creation of aSE conservation strategy. This conservation strategyshould

detail the habitat andpopulation management structuresin the SE that will be in place after removal

of the species from the threatened species list in this ecosystem. The conservation strategy should

ensure that proper habitatand population management will remain in place to ensure thatthe species

will remain recovered withoutprotection under the Act. The conservation strategy must be finalized

and signed by all agencies prior to any consideration of delisting the species. Its existence should

demonstrate the existence of adequate regulatory mechanisms as requiredby section 4(b) of the Act.

Develop and Initiate Appropriate l&E Programs. (S6)

Reducing human-induced mortalities is a major factor in effecting the recovery of the grizzly bear.

Therefore, it is crucialto the recoveryeffort that the publicunderstand reasonsforactions in orderto generate

tolerant or favorable attitudes toward the bear. The IGBC has appointed an I&E subcommittee to develop

education programs and disseminate information. Private conservation organizations interested in the

recovery of grizzly bears could be of assistance if they would include appropriate information in their

publications and news releases.

Evaluate Public Attitudes toward Grizzly Bear Management, Habitat Protection and

Maintenance, Land Use Restrictions, Mitigating Measures, Relocation of Bears, Hunting,

Nuisance Bear Control Actions, and HabitatAcquisition or Easement. (S61)

Publicattitudes are amajorpart of the successor failureof grizzly bearrecovery efforts. Understanding

of these attitudes andthe basis for public sentimentisimportant. Carefully designed researchsurveys

by qualified scientists experienced in such sampling should be initiated. The managementsubcommittee members should formulate the basic questions andattitudes of interest. The data shouldbe useful

in designingpublic outreach programs to foster public support for recovery programs.

Formulate Ways to Improve Public Attitudes about Grizzly Bears and the Grizzly Bear

Recovery Program. (S62)

Agencies should use the data on public attitudes to formulate public relations and I&E programs

through the respective I&E offices of each agency and the I&E subcommittee of the IGBC. Agencies

havingthe authority and responsibilityfor control actionsshould institute andcarry out I&E programs

to inform citizens having problems with grizzly bears of the appropriate procedures and contactsfor

assistance.

Recovery/Part Three • 115
Selkirk GrizzlyBear Recovery Zone

Implement the Recovery Plan through Appointment of a Recovery Coordinator. (S7)

The Fish and Wildlife Servicehas appointed aRecovery Coordinatorto collate all relevant informationon

grizzly bears, andto coordinate and stimulate compliance and action to implement the recovery plan. The

Coordinator should submit progress reports and conduct workshops and meetings as necessary. This

position provides acentral focus forthe accumulation, exchange, and dissemination of information, anda

central point for multi-agency coordination that will aid in the judicious use of resources and materially

enhance the recovery effort.

Revise Appropriate Federal and State Regulations to Reflect Current Situations and Initiate

International Cooperation. (S8)

Ensure consistent,up-to-date regulationsandmaintaininternational cooperationand communicationwith

all other countries wherebrown bears are being managed.

Revise Federal and State Regulations as Necessary. (SB1)

The Coordinator should initiate the revision of Federal regulations through the Federal Register and

CFR. The Coordinatorshould assistStatesin regulation revisions as necessary. Regulationsshould be

revisedto ensure regulatory adequacy. These regulationsincludeCFRregulations andnational forest

andnational park regulationsregarding sanitation. State regulationsinvolvedinclude regulationson

the taking of bears and management of hunting.

Coordinate and Exchange Information and Expertise with Canada and other Countries

Concerning Bear Research and Management. (S82)

This will increase information exchange of the state-of-the-art in bear research and management and

will promote international cooperation and improve management and recovery efforts. All IGBC

member agenciesand the Coordinatorshould exchange information and expertise concerning recovery activitieswithCanadaand other countriesmanaging bears. International cooperationis critical to

the successof the grizzly bearrecovery effort. Fourgrizzly populations span theU.S./Canadaborder,

and the cooperationand involvement of Canadianmanagement authorities should facilitate conservation of grizzlies in the U.S. Management authorities from BritishColumbia and Alberta needto be

full participantsin all aspects of the recovery program. Research conducted inCanadaon grizzly bears

is applicable to situations in the U.S.; cooperation in funding such research, cooperative efforts

involving personnel fromboth countries, and sharing of researchresultsis vital. Joint U.S./Canadian

management of bears and bear habitat is necessary for the four ecosystems that lie along the U.S. /

Canadaborder. Cooperativeinternationalmanagement plans shouldbe developedforeach ecosystem

along the borderincorporating concerns about the continued maintenanceof habitats and populations.

Such plans should be developed and accepted by agencies on both sides of the border.

International communication on bears andbearmanagement is necessarytothe successof the recovery

effort. Many of the management problems and considerations facing the threatened grizzly bears in

the U.S.—such as insular populations, small population size, confficts with timberharvest and livestock

grazing, geneticconcerns relating to smallpopulation size, movement of bears from one area to another—

are also of concerntomanagersand researchersin other countries. Many of the problemsfacingbears must

be addressed soon, andthe sharing of informationwill assistin rapid transfer of technologyandtechniques

amongallthose managingbears. The RecoveryCoordinatorshould facilitatecooperationandinternational

communication and provide information gained to managers and researchers as necessary.

116 PartThree/Recovery
Sehay 

Bittermt 

Wildemes 

Figure 12. 
i -*i .I 

‘. ,’ - 

‘I 

:“‘:* 

:z 

‘(.. *’ *-‘..,.,I I. I ‘. 

: & 

bi 

4 *.’ ;\Li ,, . . 

. !’ 

: CANADA : 

.I 

WASHINGTON 

Figure 13. 
Recovery.North Cascade Grizzly Beer & Bitteroot Recovery Zone • 121

Bitterroot and North Cascade Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Subgoal: Develop theplanning documentsnecessary to recovery thegrizzlybearin the Bitterroot

Mountains ofIdaho and Montana (BE) and theNorth Cascade Mountains of Washington (NCE).

(figures 12 and 13). Planning documents should be prepared for the North Cascades and the

Bitterroot areas by interagency working groups during 1992 and 1993, and submitted to the

NorthwestEcosystems ManagementSubcommittee for approval by 1994. These planning documents shouldfollowtheformanddetailoftherecovery chaptersin thisplanforeachoftheexisting

ecosystems. Publicinputshouldbe sought throughoutthe developmentoftheseplans. Once these

documents are completed, they should be appended to thegrizzly bearrecovery plan.

Evaluation of the Potential for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the San Juan Mountains and

Other Possible Recovery Areas Throughout the Historical Range of the Grizzly Bear

Subgoal: Evaluate thefeasibility ofgrizzlybearrecovery in the SanJuan Mountains ofColorado

and other potential recovery areas throughout the historical range of the grizzly bear. This

analysisshouldfocus on habitat values, size of the areas, human use and activities in general,

relation to other areas where grizzly bears exist, and historical information. This analysis is

expected to take 5 years, atwhich time a reportshould be presented to the IGBC.

Recovery/PartThree • 121
Literature Cited

Allendorf, F.W.,R.B. Harris, and L.H. Metzgar. 1991. Estimation of effective population size of grizzly bears

by computer simulation. Proc. Fourth International Cong. of Systematics and Evolutionary Biol. In

press.

____ and C. Servheen. 1986. Genetics and the Conservation of the GrizzlyBear. Tree 1:88-89.

Almack, J.A.,W.L. Gaines, P.H.Morrison, J.R. Eby, R.H.Naney, G.F. Wooten, S.H. Fitkin, and E.R. Garcia.

1991. North Cascades grizzly bear ecosystem evaluation; final report. Interagency Grizzly Bear

Committee,Denver, Cob. 146 pp.

Amstrup, S.C., and J. Beecham. 1976. Activity patterns of radio-collared blackbears in Idaho. J. Wildl.

Manage. 40:340-348

Archibald, W.R.,R. Ellis,and A.N. Hamilton. 1987. Responses of grizzlybears to logging truck traffic in the

Kimsquit River Valley, BritishColumbia. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 7:251-257.

Aune,K. andW. Kasworm. 1989. FinalReportEastFront GrizzlyBear Study. Montana Department of Fish,

Wildlife, and Parks. Helena, Mont. 332 pp.

____,andT. Stivers. 1985. Ecological studies of the grizzly bearin the PineButtePreserve.Mont. Dept. Fish,

Wildl., and Parks, Helena, Mont. 154 pp.

Bailey, V. 1931. Mammals of New Mexico. U.S. Dept. of Ag., Biological Survey. 412 pp.

Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Univ.of Toronto Press for NationalMuseum of Natural

Science and the National Museums of Canada. Toronto, Canada. 438 pp.

Beringer,J., S.G. Seibert,andM.R.Pelton. 1989. Incidenceof road crossing byblackbears on PisgahNational

Forest, North Carolina. Int. Conf. BearRes. and Manage. 8:85-92.

Blanchard,B. 1978. Grizzlybeardistribution in relation to habitatareas and recreationaluse: Cabin CreekHilgard Mountains. M.S. Thesis. Montana State Univ., Bozeman, Mont. 75 pp.

____,andR. Knight. 1980. Statusof grizzly bearsin the Yellowstone system. InteragencyGrizzlyBearStudy

Team. National Park Serv.,Bozeman, Mont. 10 pp.

and____. 1991. Movements of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Biol. Conser. 58:41-67.

Brannon, R.D. 1984. Influence of roads and developments on grizzly bears in YellowstoneNational Park.

Interagency Grizzly BearStudy Team, Bozeman, Mont. 52 pp.

Brody, A.J. and M.R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on blackbear movements in western North Carolina.

Wildi. Soc. Bull. 17:5-10.

Brown, D.E. 1985. The Grizzly In the Southwest. Univ. of OkIa. Press, Norman. 274 pp.

122 • Part Three / Recovery
Bunnell, F.L., andD.E.N. Tait. 1978. Populationdynamics of bears and their implication, in Proc.Int. Conf.

on PopulationDynamics of Large Mammals. Logan, Utah. &tpp.

Christensen, A.G. 1982. Cumulative effects analysis process. In: Cumulative effects analysis process.

Grizzly habitat component mapping. Natl. Park Serv., U.S. For. Serv., Libby, Mont. 22 pp.

Churcher, C.S., andA.V. Morgan. 1976. A grizzly bearfrom themiddleWisconsin of Woodbridge, Ontario,

Canada. J. EarthSci. 13:341-347.

Cole, G.F. 1972. Preservationand management of grizzly bearsin Yellowstone National Park. Pages 274-

288 in S. Herrero, ed. Bears—their biology and management. IUCN Publ. NewSeries 23.

Compton, B., P.Zager, R.B.Weilgus. 1990. SelkirkMountains grizzly bearecology project. Apr.1989-Mar.

1990. Idaho Dept. of Fishand Game, Boise, ID. 26 pp.

Cowan, I. McT. 1972. The status and conservation of bears (Ursidae) of the world - 1970. Pages 343-367 in

S. Herrero, ed. Bears—their biology and management. IUCN Publ. New Series23.

Craighead, F.C., Jr. 1976. Grizzlybear ranges andmovement as determined by radio-tracking. Pages 97-

109 in M.R. Pelton,J.W. Lentfer, and G.E. Folk,Jr., eds. Bears—their biology and management. IUCN

Publ. New Series 40.

1979. Track of the Grizzly. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, Cal. 261 pp.

____ and J.J. Craighead. 1972a. Data on grizzly bear denning activities and behavior obtainedby using

wildlife telemetry. Pages 94-106 in S. Herrero,ed. Bears—their biology and management. IUCN Publ.

New Series 23.

____ and . I972b. Grizzlybearprehibernation anddenning activities as determined by radio-tracking.

Wildl. Monogr. 32. 35 pp.

Craighead,J.J.,M.G. Homocker, andF.C. Craighead,Jr. 1969. Reproductive biologyof youngfemale grizzly

bears. J. Repro. Fert., Supl. 6:447-475.

____ J. Varney, and F.C. Craighead,Jr. 1974. A population analysis of theYellowstone grizzly bears. Bull.

40. Mont. For. and Cons. Exp. Sta. School of Forestry, Univ.of Montana, Missoula. 20 pp.

____ J.S. Sumner and G.B. Scaggs. 1982. Adefinitive system for analysis of grizzly bearhabitat and other

wilderness resources. Wildlife-WildlandsInstitute Monogr. no. I. Univ. of Mont. Foundation, Univ.

of Montana, Missoula.

____ K.Greer, R.Knight, H.I. Pac. 1988. Grizzlybearmortalitiesin the Yellowstone ecosystem. Interagency

Grizzly Bear Study Team. Bozeman, Mont. 102 pp.

Curry-Lindahl, K. 1972. The brown bear(Ursusarcios) inEurope: decline, present distribution, biology and

ecology. Pages 74-80 in S. Herrero,ed. Bears—theirbiology andmanagement. IUCN PubI. NewSeries

23.

Recovery/PartThree • 123
Davis, D. and B. Butterfield. 1991. The Bitterroot grizzly bear evaluation area: a report to the Bitterroot

Technical Review Team. Interagency GrizzlyBear Committee,Denver, Cob. 56 pp.

Dean, F.C. 1976. Aspectsof grizzly bearpopulation ecologyin Mount McKinley NationalPark. Pages 111-

119 in M.R. Pelton, J.W.Lentfer, andG.E. Folk, Jr., eds. Bears—their biology and management. IUCN

Publ. New Series 40.

DeckerD.J. and K.G.Purdy. 1988. Toward aconcept ofwildlife acceptance capacityinwildlife management.

Wildl. Soc. Bulletin. 16:53-57.

Dood, A., and H.I. Pac. 1988. Grizzlybear mortality studiesin the conterminous 48 states, January 1, 1987

- December 31, 1988. Mont. Dept. of Fish, Wildl., and Parks. Bozeman, Mont.

____,R.D.Brannon, andR.D. Mace. 1986. Finalprogrammaticenvironmentalimpactstatement, the grizzly

bear in northwestern Montana. Mont. Dept. of Fish, Wildl., and Parks. Helena, Mont. 287 pp.

Egbert, A.L., andA.W.Stokes. 1976. The socialbehavior ofbrownbears on an Alaskan salmonstream. Pages

41-56 in M.R. Pelton,J.W. Lentfer, and G.E. Folk,Jr., eds.Bears—their biology andmanagement. IUCN

Publ. NewSeries 40.

Elgmork, K. 1978. Human impact on a brown bear population. Biol. Conser. 13:81-103.

Etkin,W. 1964. Cooperation and competition in socialbehavior. Pages 1-34 inW. Etkin, ed. Social behavior

and organization among vertebrates. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.

Geist, V. 1971. Bighorn sheep biology. Wildl. Soc. News. 136:61.

____ 1974. On the relationships of social behavior and ecology in ungulates. Am. Zool. 14:205:220.

Glenn, L.P.,J.W. Lentfer, J.B. Faro, andL.H. Miller. 1976. Reproductive biologyof femalebrown bears(Ursus

arctos),McNeilRiver, Alaska. Pages 381-390 in M.R.Pelton,J.W. Lentfer, andG.E. Folk,Jr., eds.Bears—

their biology and management. IUCN Publ. New Series 40.

Greer, K.R. 1972. Grizzly bearmortality and management programs inMontana during 1971. Mont. Fish

and Game Dept. Job Completion Report. P.R. Project W120-R-3. Helena, Mont. 43 pp.

____ 1985. Montana statewide grizzly bear mortalities, 1983-84. Mont. Dept. Fish, WildI., and Parks.

Helena, Mont. 51 pp.

Guilday, J.E. 1968. Grizzly bears from eastern North America. Amer. Midland Naturalist 79:247-250.

Hamer,J.D. 1974. Distribution,abundance,andmanagement implications ofthe grizzly bearand mountain

caribou in the Mountain Creek watershed of Glacier National Park, British Columbia. M.S. Thesis.

Univ. of Calgary, Alberta. 164 pp.

____ S. Herrero, and R.T. Ogilvie. 1977. Ecological studies of the Banff National Park grizzly bear. Proj.

Report 1978. 239 pp.

124 • Part Three / Recovery
Harris, R.B. 1984. Harvest age structure as an indicator of grizzly bearpopulation status. M.S. Thesis,Univ.

of Montana, Missoula. 204 pp.

____ editor. 1985. Results of the workshop on grizzly bear population genetics. Sponsored by the Office

of the Grizzly Bear RecoveryCoordinator, U.S. Fishand Wildl. Serv., Missoula, Mont. 8 pp.

____ 1986. Grizzly bear population monitoring: current options and considerations. School of Forestry,

Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 84 pp.

____ and F.W. Allendorf. 1989. Genetically effective population size of large mammals: an assessment of

estimators. Conserv. Biol. 3:181-191.

Herrero, 5. 1970. Man and the grizzly bear (present, past, but future?) BioScience 20:1148-1153.

1972. Aspects of evolution and adaptation in American blackbears (Ursus arnencanus Pallas) and

brown and grizzly bears (U. arctos Linne’) of North America. Pages 221-233 in S. Herrero,ed. Bears—

their biology and management. IUCN Publ. New Series 23.

____ 1976. Conflicts betweenmanand grizzly bearsin the national parks of NorthAmerica. Pages 121-145

in M.R. Pelton, J.W. Lentfer, andG.E. Folk,Jr., eds. Bears—their biology andmanagement. IUCNPubi.

New Series 40.

____ 1978. A comparison of some features of the evolution ecology, andbehavior of black and grizzly/

brown bears. Carnivore 1: 7-17.

____ and D. Hamer. 1977. Courtship and copulation of a pair of grizzly bears, with comments on

reproductive plasticity and strategy. J. Mammal. 1978.

Hoak, J.H., T.W. Clark and B. Wood. 1981. Grizzly bear distribution, Grand Teton National Park Area,

Wyoming. Northwest Sci. 55:245-247.

Hock, R.J. 1960. Seasonal variations in physiological functions of Arctic ground squirrels andblackbears.

Mammalian Hibernation, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., Harvard. 124:125-171.

Hornocker, M.G. 1962. Populationcharacteristics and social andreproductive behavior of the grizzly bear

in Yellowstone National Park. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 94 pp.

Interagency GrizzlyBear Committee. 1986. InteragencyGrizzlyBear Guidelines. U.S. For. Serv.,Washington, D.C. 100 pp.

1987. Grizzlybear compendium. U.S Fish and Wildl. Serv.,Missoula, Mont. 540 pp.

Jonkel, C.J, and C. Servheen. 1977. Bears and people: a wilderness management challenge. Western

Wildlands 4:22-25.

____ and I. McT. Cowan. 1971. The blackbear in the spruce-fir forest. Wildl. Monogr. 27. 57 pp.

•Recovery/PartThree • 125
Kasworm, W. F, and T. Manley. 1988. Grizzly bear and blackbear ecology in the Cabinet Mountains of

Northwest Montana. Mont. Dept. of Fish, Wildl., and Parks. Helena, Mont. 122 pp.

____,andT.J.Thier. 1991a. Cabinet Mountains grizzly bearpopulation augmentation,1990 progressreport.

U.S. Fish and Wildi. Serv., Missoula, Mont. 14 pp.

____,and ____. 1991b. Cabinet-YaakEcosystemgrizzlybearandblackbearresearch, l990progressreport.

U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Missoula, Mont. 53 pp.

____ ____,andC. Servheen. 1993. Cabinet Mountains grizzly bearpopulation augmentation,1992 progress

report. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Missoula, Mont.

Kellert, 5. 1985. Social andperceptual factorsin endangeredspecies management.J.WildI. Manage. 49:528-

536.

____ 1986. Social and perceptual factorsin the preservation of animal species. Pages 50-73 in B. Norton

ed. The preservation of species. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.

____ and T. Clark; 1991. The theory and application of a wildlife policy framework. Pages 17-35 in W.R.

Mangun and S,S. Nagel, eds. Public policy andWildl. Conserv. Greenwood, N. Y.

Kemp,G.A. 1972. Blackbear population dynamics atColdLake, Alberta, 1968-70. Pages 26-31 in S.Herrero,

ed. Bears—their biology and management. IUCN Publ. New Series 23.

King, R.T. 1938. The essentials of a wildlife range. J. Forestry 36:457-464.

Kistchinskii, A.A. 1972. Life history of the brown bear (Ursusarctos L.) in northeast Siberia. Pages 67-73 in

S. Herrero ed. Bears—their biology and management. IUCN Publ. New Series 23.

Knight, R.,and B.M. Blanchard. 1993. Can the status of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population be

determined by counting females with cubs-of-the-year? Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team,

Bozeman, Mont. 20 pp. Wildl. Soc. Bulletin.: Submitted.

____ ____,andD.J. Mattson. 1989. Yellowstone grizzlybearinvestigations,annualreport of the Interagency

Study Team 1988. National Park Serv. 34 pp.

____ ____,and ____. 1990. Yellowstone grizzlybearinvestigations, annual report of the Interagency Study

Team 1989. National Park Serv. 33 pp.

____ and ____. 1991. Yellowstone grizzly bearinvestigations, annual report of the InteragencyStudy

Team 1990. National Park Serv. 11 pp.

____ ____ and ____. 1992. Yellowstone grizzly bearinvestigations, annual report of the InteragencyStudy

Team 1991. National Park Serv. 11 pp.

____ and ____. 1993. Yellowstone grizzly bearinvestigations, annual report of the InteragencyStudy

Team 1992. National Park Serv. In press.

126 • Part Three / Recovery
Knight, R., J. Beecham, B. Blanchard, L. Eberhardt, L. Metzgar, C. Servheen, J. Talbot. 1988. Equivalent

population size for 45 adult females. Report of Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Population Task Force.

Unpubl. National Park Serv.,Bozeman, Mont. 7pp.

Koford, C.B. 1969. The last of the Mexican grizzly bears. IUCN Bull. New Series. 2:95.

Kurten, B. 1968. Pleistocene mammals of Europe. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. 317 pp.

Leopold, A.S. 1967. Grizzlies of the Sierra delNido. PacificDiscovery Vol. 20. 30-32 pp.

Lloyd, K. and S. Fleck. 1977. Some aspectsof the ecology of black andgrizzly bearsin southeasternBritish

Columbia. B.C. Fish and Wildl. Branch, Victoria. 55 pp.

Lyon, L.J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. J. For. 77:658-660.

Martinka, C.J. 1972. Habitat relationships of grizzly bears in Glacier National Park. NationalPark Serv.

Prog. Rep. 19 pp.

____ 1974. Population characteristics of grizzly bears in Glacier National Park, Montana. J. Mammal.

55(1):2129.

____ 1976. Ecological role andmanagement of grizzly bearsin Glacier NationalPark, Montana. Pages 147-

156 in M.R. Pelton,J.W. Lentfer, and G.E. Folk,Jr., eds. Bears-their biology and management. IUCN

Publ. New Series 40.

Mattson, D.J., R.R. Knight, and B.M.Blanchard. 1987. The effects of developments and primary roads on

grizzly bearhabitatuse inYellowstone NationalPark,Wyoming. Int.Conf.BearRes. andManage. 8:57-

64.

McArthur, K.L. 1979. The behavior of grizzly bears in relation to people in Glacier National Park—a

literature review. 70 pp.

McLellan, B.N. 1989. Effects of resource extraction industries on behaviour and population dynamics of

grizzly bears in the Flathead drainage, British Columbia and Montana. Ph.D. thesis. Univ. of British

Columbia, Vancouver. 116 pp.

____ 1990. Relationships between human industrial activity and grizzly bears. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and

Manage. 8:57-64.

____ and R.D. Mace. 1985. Behavior of grizzly bears in response to roads, seismic activity, and people.

PreliminaryRep., Can. Border Grizzly Proj., Cranbrook, B.C. 53 pp.

____ and D.M. Shackleton. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource extraction industries: effects of roads on

behaviour, habitat use, and demography.J. Appl. Ecol. 25:451-460.

Meagher, M., and S. Fowler. 1989. The consequences of protecting problem grizzly bears. Pages 141-144

in M. Bromley, ed. Bear-people coi~flicts: proceedings of a symposium on management strategies.

Northwest Territories Dept. of Renew. Res., Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada.

Recovery/ Part Three • 127
Mealey, 5. 1975. The natural food habits of free ranging grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park. M.S.

Thesis. Montana State Univ., Bozeman. 159 pp.

Miller, S.D. and W.B. Ballard. 1982. Homing of transplanted Alaskanbrown bears.J.Wildl.Manage. 46:869-

876.

Mundy, K.R.D., and D.R. Flook. 1973. Background for managing grizzly bears in the national parks of

Canada. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Series. No. 22. 35 pp.

Murie, A. 1944. The wolves of Mount McKinley. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. Washington,D.C. 238

pp.

____ 1962. Mammals of Mount McKinley NationalPark, Alaska. Mount McKinley Nat.Hist. Assoc. S6 pp.

Pac, H.I., and A. Dood. 1989. Grizzly mortality studies in the conterminous 48 states, January 1, 1988 -

December 31, 1989. Mont. Dept. of Fish, Wildi., and Parks. Bozeman, Mont.

____,and____. 1992. Draft grizzly bearmortalities in the lower 48 states, 1990- 1992. Unpubl. Mont.Dept.

of Fish, Wildl., and Parks. Bozeman, Mont.

Palmisciano, D. 1986. Grizzly mortality update. Mont.Dept. of Fish, Wildl., and Parks, Bozeman, Mont.

2pp.

Pearson, A.M. 1972. Population characteristics of the northern interior grizzly in the Yukon Territory,

Canada. Pages 32-35 in S.Herrero, ed. Bears—their biology andmanagement. IUCN Publ. NewSeries

23.

____ 1975. The northern interior grizzly bear (Ursusarctos). Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Series. 34. 86 pp.

____ 1976. The borealforest grizzly bear, annual report for1975. Unpubl. Can.Wildl. Serv.Rep. No. 2676.

l8pp.

Rausch, R.L. 1963. Geographic variationin size inNorthAmerican brown bears(Ursus arctos L.) asindicated

by condylobasal length. Can. J. Zool. 41 :33-45.

____ 1978. Structure, status, reproductive biology, movements, distribution and habitat utilization of

grizzly bears inNorthern Petroleum Reserve A. Alaska Dept. of Fishand Game 105C studies, 41 pp.

Riegelhuth, R. 1966. Grizzly bears and human visitation. M.S. Thesis. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins.

80 pp.

Rogers,L.L. 1977. Socialrelationships,movements, and population dynamics of blackbearsin northeastern

Minnesota. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul. 194 pp.

____,and S.M. Rogers. 1976. Parasites of bears: a review. Pages 411-430 in M.R. Pelton, J.W. Lentfer, and

G.E. Folk ed. Bears—their biology and management. IUCN Pubi. New Series 40.

128 • Part Three / Recovery
Russell, R.H., J.W. Nolan, N.G.Woody, G. Anderson, and A.M. Pearson. 1978. Astudy of the grizzly bear

(Ursus arctos) in Jasper National Park. Can. Wildl. Serv., Edmonton. 95 pp.

Schallenberger, A. 1980. Review of oil and gas exploitation impacts on grizzly bears. Int. Conf. BearRes.

and Manage. 4:271-276.

____ and C. Jonkel. 1980. Rocky Mountain east front grizzly studies, 1979. Border GrizzlyProject Special

Rep. No. 39. Univ. of Montana, School of Forestry, Missoula. 207 pp.

Scott, J.P. 1964. The effects of early experience on social behavior and organization. Pages 231-255 in W.

Etkin, ed. Social behavior and organization amongvertebrates. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago. 307

pp.

Servheen, C. 1990. The status and conservation of bears of the world. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage.

Monogr. Series No. 2. 32 pp.

____ and L.C. Lee. 1979. Mission Mountains grizzly bearstudies, an interim report, 1976-778. Border

Grizzly Project, Mont. Forest and Conserv. Exp. Sta. School of Forestry,Univ. of Montana, Missoula.

299 pp.

____,and R. Klaver. 1981. Grizzlybeardens anddenning activityin theMission andRattlesnake Mountains,

Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:201-207.

W. Kasworm, and A. Christensen. 1987. Approaches to augmenting grizzly bearpopulations in the

Cabinet Mountains of Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 7:363-367.

____ A.N. Hamilton, R. Knight, B.N. McLellan. 1991. Evaluation of the Bitterroot and North Cascadesto

sustain viable grizzly bear populations. Rep. to the Interagency GrizzlyBearCommittee. Boise, ID. 9

pp.

Shaffer, M.L. 1978. Determining minimum viablepopulation sizes: a case study of the grizzly bear (Ursus

arctos). Ph.D. Diss. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke Univ., Durham, North

Carolina. 190 pp.

____ andF.B. Samson. 1985. Populationsize andextinction: anote on determining critical population sizes.

Amer. Naturalist. 125:145-152.

Singer, F.J. 1978. Seasonal concentrations of grizzlybears,North Forkof the FlatheadRiver, Montana. Can.

Field Nat. 92:283-286..

Smith, B.L. 1978. Investigation into blackand grizzly bearresponses to coastal logging - 1977. B.S. Thesis,

Simon Fraser Univ., Burnaby, B.C. 85 pp.

Soule, M.E. 1980. Thresholdsfor survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. Pages 151-169

in M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox, eds. Conservation biology - an evolutionary-ecological perspective.

Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.

Recovery/Part Three • 129
Spreadbury, B. 1984. Yukon grizzly transplant project. Prep. for Yukon Fish and Wildl. Branch,

Environment Can., Yukon Fish and Game Assoc. and Univ. Calgary, Alberta.

Stebler, A.M. 1972. Conservation of the grizzly—ecologicaland cultural consideration. Pages 297-303 in S.

Herrero, ed. Bears—their biology and management. IUCN Publ. New Series 23.

Storer, T.I., and L.P. Tevis. 1955. California grizzly. Univ. of NebraskaPress, Lincoln and London. 335 pp.

Troyer, WA., and R.J. Hensel. 1964. Structure and distribution of a Kodiak bear population. J. Wildl.

Manage. 28:769-772.

U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. 1982. GrizzlyBearRecovery Plan. U.S. Fishand Wildl. Serv.,Denver, Cob.

195 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 1986. Interagencygrizzlybearmanagement guidelines. U.S. For. Serv.,Missoula, Mont.

85 pp.

____ 1990. CEM - a model for assessing effects on grizzly bears. U.S. For. Serv. 24 pp.

Weaver,J., R. Escano,D.Mattson,T. Puchlerz, andD.Despain. 1986. Acumulativeeffects model forgrizzly

bearmanagement in theYellowstoneEcosystem. Pages 234-246 in G.P. Contrerasand K.E. Evans, eds.

Proceedings-grizzly bear habitatsymposium. U.S. For. Serv. Intermountain Res. Sta., Ogden, Utah.

Gen. Tech. Rep. LNT-207.

Weilgus, R.B., F.L. Bunnell, W. Wakkinen, and P. Zager. 1993. Population dynamics of SelkirkMountains

grizzly bears. J. Wildi. Manage. Submitted.

Wilcox, B.A. 1980. Insular ecology and conservation. Pages 95-117 in M.E. Soule’ and B.A. Wilcox eds.

Conservation biology—an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer Associates, Inc.,Sunderland,

Mass. 395 pp.

Wright, H. 1909. The grizzly bear. Univer. of Nebraska Press. Lincoln and London. 274 pp.

Zager, P.E. 1980. The influence of logging and wildfire on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana.

Ph.D. Diss. Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 131 pp.

____ and C. Jonkel. 1983. Managing grizzly bear habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains. J. Forestry.

81:524-526.

130 • Part Three / Recovery
PAkT 4 I 
Implementation Schedule

The implementation schedule that follows outlinesactions andcosts forthe recovery program. Itis aguide

for meeting the objectives elaborated under the recovery section of thisplan. This schedule indicatestask

priorities,tasknumber, taskdescription,duration of tasks (“ongoing” denotes ataskthat oncebegunshould

continue on an annual basis), the responsible agencies, and lastly, estimated costs. These actions, when

accomplished, should bring about the recovery of the grizzly bear and protect its habitat. No costs were

identified for a taskif the work on the task is not planned duringthe upcoming 3 years. Costs outlined in

thisimplementation schedule are estimated annual costs for implementing each taskin general. They are

not meant to represent cost to a specific agency or program.

Prioritiesin column one of the following implementation schedule are assigned as follows:

1. Priority 1—all actions that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from

decliningirreversibly in the foreseeable future.

2. Priority 2—an action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species population!

habitat quality or some other significant negative impact short of extinction.

3. Priority 3—all other actions necessary to provide forfull recovery of the species.

Key to Acronyms used in Implementation schedule

BLM - Bureau of Land Management

FS - Forest Service

ES - Fishand Wildlife Service, Ecological Services

IGBC - All IGBC Agencies (Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, National Park Service, Washington Department of

Wildlife, Wyoming Departmentof FishandGame, BritishColumbia, Albertaand Tribes)

LE - Fish andWildlife Service, Law Enforcement

NPS - NationalPark Service

U - Universities

implementation Schedule! Part Four • 131
Task

Task Task Description Duration

Cost Estimates (in $1 ,OOO’s)

FY-Ol FY-02 FY03 Comments

11 Determine population monitoring

methods and criteria.

112 Establish reporting procedures

and systems to gather and

evaluate information on populations.

1 12 Determine current population

conditions.

1 131 Identify human sources of

direct mortality.

1 132 Identify sources of indirect

mortality.

1 133 Determine effects of human

activities.

1 2111 CoordinateState Federal,

Tribal law enforcement

1 2112 Reduce mistaken-identity

killing by big game and

black bear hunters.

1 2113 Investigate and prosecute

illegal killing of grizzly bears.

1 21141 lncreaseeffortstoclean up

carrion and other attractants.

1 21142 Reduce losses dueto mishandling of bears during

researchand management

actions throughdevelopment

of a bear handling manual.

1 21143 Reduce losses due to predator

and rodentcontrol.

300 300 300

60 60 60

10 10 10

15 15 15

Included in Tasks 21

and 2111

80 80 80

— Part of ongoing

agency programs

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule

Responsible Party

FWS Other

Region Program Agency

6,1 ES IGBC

6,1 ES IGBC

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 LE, ES

6,1 LE

6,1 ES

6, ES

6,1 ES

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

Complete

Complete

Ongoing

Complete

Complete

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Complete

Ongoing

-u

a)

j Priority

-u

4, 3

~ 1

a)

0

~, 1

EDa.

( (
)

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule (Continued)

Responsible Party

Task

Priority Task Task Description Duration

FWS

Region Program

Other

Agency

Cost Estimates (in $1 ,OOO’s)

FY-Ol FY42 FY43 Comments

121144 Ensure that control of nusiance

bears is accomplished according

to 50 CFR 17.40 and the Guidelines.

121145 Reduce losses by developing and

implementing public education

and awareness programs.

221 Apply the Guidelines on Federal

lands to make domestic livestock grazing compatible.

222 Apply the Guidelines on Federal

lands to make timber harvest

and road building compatible.

223 Apply the Guidelines on Federal

lands to make mining, oil and

gas exploration and development

compatible.

224 Apply the Guidelineson Federal

lands to make recreational activities compatible.

225 Coordinate with State and

county governments to

encourage consideration of

grizzly bear habitat needs.

226 Monitor the cumulative effects

of management actions in

grizzly habitat

31 Define the recovery zone within

which thegrizzly bear will be

managed.

32 Identify agency management

stratification within the

recovery zone.

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

Complete 6,1 ES

2 Years 6,1 ES

IGBC

IGBC

FS,BLM

FS,BLM

FS,BLM

FS, NPS

BLM

IGBC

IGBC

100 100 100

80 80 80

— — — Part of ongoing

agency programs

— — — Part of ongoing

agency programs

— Part of ongoing

agency programs

— — — Part ofongoing

agency programs

100 100 100

350 350 350 ES lead

IGBC

IGBC 50 50 — Complete for NCDE,

SE, YE, CYE

Incompletein North

Cascades and Bitterroot

)

)

3 1

‘a

a)

5-

U)

C)

EDa. 1

‘a

a)

~1 1 0

C

C-)
Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule (Continued)

Responsible Party

Task

Task Task Description Duration

FWS

Region Program

Other

Agency

Cost Estimates (in $1 ,OOO’s)

FY41 FY42 FY43 Comments

36 Conduct research on effects

of road densities.

411 Develop a population monitoring

System.

412 Develop a system of responsibilities to collate, analyze

and report annual information on

population data.

Ongoing 6,1 ES

Complete 6,1 ES

Complete 6,1 ES

IGBC 250 250 250

IGBC

IGBC

413 Standardize reporting forms and

methods.

423 Establish athreshold of minimal

habitat values to be maintained.

Complete 6,1 ES

1 Year 6,1 ES

512 Develop and test procedures to

relocate bears for demographic

or genetic purposes.

513 Apply the Guidelines to maintain and enhance habitat.

61 Evaluatepublic attitudes

towards grizzly bears.

62 Formulate ways to improve public attitudes about grizzly bears.

7 Implement theplanthrough

appointment of aGrizzly

Bear Recovery Coordinator.

212 Appointa grizzly bear mortality coordinator.

Ongoing

Ongoing

2 Years

Ongoing

Ongoing

6 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6 ES

Complete 6,1 ES

ES,NPS

IGBC

IGBC

150 150 150

— Part of ongoing agency

programs.

80 80

IGBC Tobe done afterTask

61 is completed.

340 340 340

MFWP

33 Conduct researchto determine

extent of grizzly bear range.

35 Conduct researchto determine

therelationship between habitat

values, physiological condition,

and population viability.

Ongoing

5 Years

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

IGBC

FS,U

240 240 240 Complete for NCDE,

SE, YE, CYE

Incompletein North

Cascades and Bitterroots

60 60 60 Washington State

University lead

) )

a)

j Priority

-u

3

o

a)

0

~U) C)

‘a

a.

~

‘a

IGBC

IGBC 80 —

2

2

2

)
)

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Implementation Schedule (Continued)

ResponsibleParty

Task

Priority Task Task Description Duration

FWS

Region Program

Other

Agency

Cost Estimates (in $1,OOO’s)

FY41 FY42 FY43 Comments

37 Conduct research on effects

of habitat fragmentation.

2 421 Develop and apply the CEA.

2 422 Complete habitat mapping.

2 424 Apply CEA analysis to each

bear management unit.

2 426 Develop aConservation Stratedy that outlines population

and habitat monitoring.

2 81 Revise Federal and State

regulations as necessary.

2 82 Coordinateand exchange

information with Canada and

other countries.

23 Coordinateactivities on

readdressing population limiting factors and monitor compliance with Recovery Plan.

34 Conduct researchto determine

habitat use,food habits,

home range size, etc.

38 Evaluateapplicability of PVA.

414 Monitor relocated bears.

425 Report management activities.

511 Refine procedures for relocating oraversively conditioning

nuisance bears.

52 Manage population and habitat

on private and State lands.

53 Develop a Conservation Strategy

that outlines population and

habitat regulatory mechanisms.

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

6,1 ES

IGBC

IGBC

ES, NPS

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

IGBC

265 265 265

600 600 600

550 550 550

Include linkage zone

studies

ES estimates of cost

Part of ongoing agency

programs

66 66 66

— Part of ongoing agency

programs

— Included in Task 7

60 60 60 Included in Task 71

240 240 240

10 10

10 10

10

10

Part of ongoing ~gerlcy

programs

10 10 10

— — — Part of ongoing agency

programs.

— — — Included in Task 426.

) )

2

3

3

‘5- 3

3

‘a

~. 3

a)

g 3

U)

C)a 3

‘a

a)

~. 3 -n

0

~ 3

C,’
Appendix A

Selected Pages from the

Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines
Selected Pages from the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines

I. Introductions

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (P.L. 93-205) requires special protection and management on Federal

lands for the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), a threatened species. Federal and State personnel

cooperatively developed guidelines for grizzly protection and management in National Forests, National

Parks, and Bureau of Land Management lands in the grizzly bear ecosystems in compliance withESA.

II. Background

On August 1, 1975, the grizzly bear south of Canada was determined to be a threatened species by the

Secretary of Interior under ESA authority. This determination required Federal agencies to:

1. Utilize their authorities to carry out conservation programs forlisted species;

2. Insure that their activities not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species; and,

3. Insure that their activities not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species; and,

Ill. Policy

A. Park Service Grizzly Bear Policy

Management policy of the National Parks are designed to:

1. Restore and maintain the natural integrity, distribution and behavior of bears in the par~ks.

2. Provide for visitors to understand, observe and appreciate bears,

3. Provide forvisitor safety byminimizingbear/humanconflict by reducing human-generatedfood

sources and by regulating visitor distribution.

Specifically, the Park Service will identify, within Park boundaries, grizzly habitat requirements. As

necessary, the Service shall control visitor use and accessto such habitat, including closure to entry forother

than officialpurposes.Activemanagement programs, wherenecessary, will be carried out to perpetuate the

national distribution and abundance of grizzlies andthe ecosystems on whichthey depend, in accordance

with existingFederallaws.The Servicewill cooperatewith the FishandWildlifeService, whichis recognized

as the lead agency in matters pertaining to threatenedor endangered species. Management actions for the

protection and perpetuation of grizzly bearshallbe incorporated into the resources management plan for

the pertinent National Parks. The Bear Management Programs will compliment and supplement these

Guidelines.

B. Forest Service Grizzly Bear Management Policy

The Forest Service (FS) is committed to helping achieve recovery of the grizzly bearby carryingout active

conservation programs in close cooperation with the States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park

Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other agencies and groups.

The principal role for the Forest Service is to manage the habitat on the National Forests in a way that

recovery can be accomplished. In helping to achieve recovery, the FS will establish andimplement uniform

planning and management procedures including:

1. A grizzly bear habitat mapping and cumulative effects analysis process (a tool for assessing

effects of land management activities in time and space on occupied grizzly bear habitat.)

2. The resource management guidelines and grizzly management situations as established in the

“Interagency Grizzly BearManagement Guidelines” (Guidelines).

Appendix A • 139
3. Quantification of recovery objectivesin Forest Plans including: (a) the amount of habitat needed

for recovery, expresses as habitat capability when possible, and (b) objectives to decrease

preventable human-caused mortalities.

The FS will emphasize actions which contribute toward conservation and recovery of the bear within areas

identified in theGrizzlyBearRecovery Plan. Objectives are tomaintain andenhance habitatand tominimize

potential for grizzly-human conflicts. The FS will manage habitats essential to bear recovery for multiple

land use benefits, to the extent these land uses are compatible with the goal of grizzly recovery.

Land uses whichcannot bemadecompatiblewith the goal of grizzly recovery, andare under FS control,will

be redirected or discontinued. Management guidelines andobjectives, with cumulative effects process, and

goals for habitat compatibility and mortality will be used to guide activities which are compatible with

grizzly bearrecovery. Itis alsothe policy of the Forest Service to facilitate recreationuse in occupied grizzly

habitat to the extent that such levels or use are compatible with both human safety and grizzly recovery

objectives. Emphasis will be placedon informationprogramsto raise the awareness of National Forest users

about proper behaviorin grizzly habitat.

Policy on specific grizzly bear issues is found in Forest Service Manual 2670.

IV. Grizzly Bear Management Situations

Five different grizzly management situations are described. All involved National Forest, National Park,

and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands will be identified by appropriate situations. Each management situation fits a type of land area where unique:

1. Grizzly populations and habitat conditions exist; and,

2. Management direction applies.

Forest Supervisors, Park Superintendents, andBLM Area Managers will identify the differentmanagement

situations areas in their respective areas of responsibility.

A. Management Situation 1

1. Population and Habitat Conditions

The area contains grizzly population centers (areas key to the survival of grizzly where

seasonal year-long grizzly activity, under natural, free-ranging conditions is common) and

habitat component needed for the survival and recovery of the species or a segment of its

population.The probability isvery greatthat majorFederalactivities or programsmayaffect

(have direct or indirect relationships to the conservation and recovery of) the grizzly.

2. Management Direction

Grizzly habitat maintenance and improvement (improvement does not apply to Park

Service) and grizzly-human conflict minimization will receive the highest management

priority. Management decisionswill favorthe needs of the grizzly bearwhengrizzly habitat

andother landuse values compete. Land useswhich can affect grizzlies and! or their habitat

will be made compatible with grizzly needs or such uses will be disallowed or eliminated.

Grizzly-human conflictswill be resolved in favor of the grizzlies unless the bearinvolvedis

determined tobe a nuisance. Nuisancebears maybe controlled through either relocation or

removal but only if such control would result in a more natural free-ranging grizzly

population and all reasonable measures have been taken to protect the bear and/or its

habitat (including area closures and/or activity curtailments).

140 • Appendix A
B. Management Situation 2

1. Population and Habitat Conditions

Currentinformationindicatesthatthe area lacks distinct population centers; highly suitable

habitat does not generally occur, although some grizzly habitat components exist and

grizzlies may be presentoccasionally. Habitat resources in ManagementSituation 2 either

are unnecessary for survival and recovery of the species, or the need has not yet been

determined but habitat resources may be necessary. Certain management actions are

necessary. The status of such areas is subject to review and change according to demonstrated grizzly population and habitat needs. Major Federal activities may affect the

conservation of the grizzly bear primarily in that they may contribute toward (a) humancaused bear mortalities or (b) long-term displacement where the zone of influence could

affect habitat use in Management Situation 1.

2. Management Direction

The grizzly bear is an important, but not the primary, use of the area. In some cases, habitat

maintenance andimprovement may be important management considerations. Minimization of grizzly-human conflict potentialthat could leadto human-causedmortalities is ahigh

management priority. In thismanagement situation, managers would accommodate demonstrated grizzly populations and/or grizzly habitat use in other land use activities if

feasible, but not to the extent of exclusion of other uses. A feasible accommodation is one

whichis compatible with (does not make unobtainable) the major goals and! or objectives

of other uses. Management will atleast maintain thosehabitat conditions whichresulted in

the area being stratified Management Situation 2. When grizzly population and/or grizzly

habitat use and otherland use needs are mutually exclusive, the other land use needs may

prevail in management consideration. In cases where the need of the habitat resources for

recovery has not yet been determined, other land usesmayprevail to the extentthat theydo

not result in irretrievable/irreversible resource commitments which would preclude the

possibilityof eventualrestratification toManagement Situation1. If grizzlypopulation and/

or habitat use represents demonstrated needs that are so great (necessary to the normal

needs or survival of the species or a segment of its population) that they should prevail in

management considerations, then the area should be reclassified under Management

Situation 1. Managers would control nuisance grizzlies.

C. Management Situation 3

1.Population and Habitat Conditions

Grizzly presence is possible but infrequent. Developments, such as campgrounds, resorts or

other high human use associated facilities, and human presence result inconditions which

make grizzly presence untenable for humans and/or grizzlies. There is a high probability

that major Federal activities or programs may affect the species’ conservation and recovery.

2. Management Direction

Grizzly habitat maintenance and improvement are not management considerations.

Grizzly-human conflict minimization is a high priority managementconsideration. Grizzly

bear presence and factors contributing to their presence will be actively discouraged. Any

grizzly involved in a grizzly-human conflict will be controlled. Any grizzly frequenting an

area will be controlled.

Appendix A • 141
D. Management Situation 4

1. Population and Habitat Conditions

Grizzliesdo not occurin the area but habitatandhumanconditions makethe area potentially

suitable for grizzly occupancy, and the area is needed for the survival and recovery of the

species. The probability is very greatthat major Federalactivities and programs mayaffect

the species’ conservation and recovery.

2. Management Direction

The grizzly bearis an important potential use on the area, Grizzlyhabitat maintenance and

improvement are important management considerations. Grizzly-human conflictminimizationis not a management consideration. Habitat and humanconditionsmaking the area

suitable for grizzly occupancy will not be degraded pending decisions regarding reestablishment of grizzlies.

E. Management Situation 5

1. Population and Habitat Conditions

Grizzlies do not occur, or occur only rarely in the area. Habitat may be unsuitable,

unavailable, orsuitable andavailablebut unoccupied.The area lackssurvival and recovery

values for the species or said values are unknown. Major Federal activities and programs

probably will not affect species conservation and recovery.

2. Management Direction

Consideration for grizzly bears and their habitatin other resource related decisionsis not

directed. Maintenance of grizzly habitat is an option. Any grizzly involved in a grizzlyhuman conflict will be controlled.

V. Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines

Grizzly management guidelines for each of five resource managementsystemsare listed foreach management situation. The guidelines are grouped under the headings

1. Maintain and Improve Habitat;

2. Minimize Grizzly-Human Conflict Potential; and,

3. Resolve Grizzly-Human Conflict.

The heading subjects are the major management objectives.

Guidelines are subject to change as research provides additional data and/or management directives

change.

These Guidelines and the attendant Management Stations represent a comprehensive and integrated

approach to the goal of grizzly bearconservation. Although the context anddirection for management may

vary legitimately between Management Situations, management actions and human activities in MS 1

through MS 4 mayinfluence grizzly bearconservation. The value of the Management Situationconcept for

grizzly bear management is most fully realized with proper stratification and implementation.

142 • Appendix A
Appendix B

Road Management in Grizzly Bear Habitat
Road Management in Grizzly Bear Habitat

The Management of Roads

The management of roadsis the most powerful tool available to balance the needs of bears and all other

wildlife with the activities of humans. In orderto better understand the effectiveness of roadmanagement

techniques, it is necessary to consider the actual impacts of forest roads on grizzly bears. Bears display

varying responses to roads and road activity. In general, increased human access on open roads and

continued human use of closed roads have overall detrimental effects on grizzly populations. Roads and

road activity allow ~ontinued bear mortality risk, increase habituation of bears, and effectively decrease

usable habitat(Elgmork 1978,SchallenbergerandJonkel 1980,Brannon 1984, McLellan1989). The response

of individual bears to roadsisrelated to positive or negative associations with the road.

Mortality

Increased grizzly bear mortality is related to habituation or the lack of avoidance by bears of roadsand the

human activities that occur in association with roads. Bears can develop a positive association to roads

because of the ease of travel along roads, including routesin or between important feeding areas. In some

areasresearchhas demonstrated that bears often useunpaved secondary roads astravel routes(Smith 1978,

Zager 1980) during the night under cover of darkness (McLellan and Shackleton 1988), but also use roads

during the daylight hours. Additionally, palatable natural foods and foods planted during management

activities, such as clover and grasses, often grow in abundance along roads. These foods provide astrong

attractant to bears andalsoencourage bearuse of roadsand surrounding habitat. Initially, thismayappear

beneficial in that it allows more complete habitat use in roaded areas. However, bear use of roads also

exposes them to the presence of people and leads to human-bear conflicts and habituation of bears. In

general, habituation (or the loss of an animal’s natural wariness of humans), is not beneficial to bears.

Habituationincreases the presence of bears on andalong roads,in open areas nearroads, andin human-use

areas, increasing the vulnerability of these bears to illegal killing. Even in national parks, habituation

increasesthe likelihood of illegal feedingand the probability of abear becoming a threat to human safety.

Many habituatedbearsin parks must eventuallybe removedfromthewild and/or destroyed. Habituated

bears generally experience high mortality rates (Meagher and Fowler 1989).

Mortality isthemost serious consequence of roadsin grizzly habitat. Research has confirmed that grizzlies

experience increased vulnerability to legal harvest andpoaching as aconsequence of increased road access

by humans(Schallenberger1980,Zager 1980,McLellanandMace 1985, AuneandKasworm 1989). McLellan

and Mace (1985) foundthat adisproportionate number of human-caused grizzly mortalities occurred near

roads. In Montana,Dood et al. (1986) reported that 48% of all known non-huntingmortalities during 1967-

1986 occurredwithin one mile of roads. Aune andKasworm (1989) reported 63% of knownhuman-caused

grizzly deaths on the east front of the Rocky Mountains occurred within 1 km of roads, including 10 of 11

knownfemale grizzly deaths. Bears are alsokilled by vehicle collision, the most direct form of road-related

mortality (Greer 1985, Knight etal. 1986, Palmisciano 1986).

Habitat Loss

Negative association with roads can decrease habitat use. Negative association arises from bears’ fear of

vehicles, vehiclenoise,other human-relatednoise around roads, humanscentalong roads, and huntingand

shooting along or from roads. Bears that experience such negative effects learn to avoid the disturbance

generatedby roads. Such animals are unlikely to change thisresultant avoidance behavior even after road

closures and the lack of negative reenforcement. Even occasional human-related vehiclenoise can result in

Appendix B • 145
continued road avoidance and habitatloss associated with such avoidance. In fact, unpredictable random

road use, the kind of use that may occur with administrative use of closed roads, may be even more

disturbing to bears that have a negative associationwith roads. Females who have learned to avoid roads

may also teach their cubs to avoid roads. In this way, learned avoidance behavior can persist for several

generations of bears before theyagainutilize habitatassociated with closed roads. When roads are located

in importanthabitats such as riparian zones, snowchutes, and shrubfields, habitatloss through avoidance

behavior can be significant due to the denial of the resources in these areas to bears.

Recent studiesin northwestern Montana reinforce the factthat the presence of evenclosed roadscan affect

grizzly populations. Preliminaryanalyses ofgrizzly bear researchdata fromthe SouthFork of the Flathead

River show that grizzlies avoidedroadedareas evenwhereexistingroadswere officially closedto public use

(Manley andMace in progress). Females with cubs remainedprimarily in high,rocky,marginal habitatfar

from roads. Avoidance behaviorby bears of illegal vehicular traffic, foot traffic, and/or authorized use

behindroad closures mayaccountforthe lack of use of areasnearroadsby femalegrizzly bearsin this area.

This research demonstrated that a significant portion of the habitat in the studyarea apparently remained

unused by female grizzlies for several years. Since adult females are the most important segment of the

population, thislackof use ofboth open-roadedandclosed-roadedareasis significantto thepopulation. The

data from the South Fork of the Flathead River area also showed that the survivorship of the offspring of

females that lived in unroaded, high elevation habitat waslower than that recordedin other study areas in

theNCDE. The majority of this mortality was dueto naturalfactorsrelatedto the dangers of livingin steep,

rocky habitats. Thisis importantin that the effects of road avoidancemayresult not only in higher mortality

along roads and in avoidance of and lack of use of the resources along roads, but in the survival of young

whentheir mothers are forced to live in less favorable areas away from roads.

Several studies elsewhere indicate that females and family groups avoid roads (Smith 1978, Miller and

Ballard 1982). In coastal regions of British Columbia female grizzly bears avoided logging roads and the

surrounding area (Archibaldet al. 1987). Zager (1980) also believed that avoidance by females with cubs of

choice habitats dueto the presence of roadswas amajorconcern. Femaleswith cubs displacedinto marginal

habitat may experience physiological stressesrelated to decreased nutrient and energy intake,resulting in

lower cub survivorship.

Further evidence that grizzlies are often displaced from habitatsurrounding roads has been reported by

Lloyd andFleck (1977), Schallenberger andJonkel (1980), Brannon (1984), Aune and Kasworm (1989), and

Kasworm and Manley (1990). Aune and Stivers (1985) reported that bears avoided open roads and

surrounding corridors even whenthe area contained preferred habitat. In southeastern British Columbia,

grizzly bears were found to avoid areas within 100 m of roadsresulting in a58% loss of functional habitat

within these areas (McLellan and Shackleton 1988). McLellan and Mace (1985) estimated that 8.5% of the

total study area in southeasternBritish Columbia was madeincompatible for grizzly usebecause of roads.

Grizzly populations in different areas show varying reactions to road stimuli. Non-habituated bears in

direct view of roadsandvehicles generallyflee, whereasthose in protectivecover are less affected (McLellan

andMace 1985, McLellan 1990). Although they maybecome agitated, those bears in park populations and

other areas frequented by humanactivity are generallymore habituated to humans and show less reaction

to road activity. Avoidance andflightare obviousresponses to stress, howeverstress can alsomanifest itself

with increased heart and respiration rates even in animals that show no outward reaction (Geist 1971).

Additionally, changesin type of vehicles, road stimuli, or in the typical amount of road activity can invoke

flight response even in habituated bears. In Yellowstone National Park, individual age and sex classes of

bears were impacted differently by roads (Mattson et al. 1987). Subadults and females were most often

146 • Appendix B
located nearroads. Although the motivationsfor such behavior are not clear, subadults and females were

perhaps displaced into roaded,marginal habitatby dominantbears. Displacementinto or use of habitatless

secure from humans can result in increased mortality for all age classes.

Management Options

Several nationalforests manage habitatthat is considered essential to grizzly recovery andis designated as

ManagementSituationI(MSI)(U.S.F.S.1985). In MS1 areas, decisionswill favorthe needs of the grizzly bear

when grizzly habitat andotherland-use values compete. Land-uses whichcan affect grizzlies and/ or their

habitat will be made compatible with grizzly needs or such uses will be disallowed or eliminated (U.S.F.S.

1985). In M52 areas, land-uses will be made compatible with grizzly needs when possible, but not to the

exclusion of otherland-use activity. Several forests have adopted, among other protective measures,open

road density standards rangingfrom 0.75 to 1.0mile of open road persquare mile within MSI. Openroad

densities are calculated in “compartments”, or”analysis areas” of 5,000to 15,000acres. Nationalforests have

adopted awide range of roadmanagement policiesin an attempt to addressthe negative effects of roadson

grizzly populations in MS1 areas. The following road density standards or road management policies for

MSI areas (as identified in existing forest management plans) currently being implemented by various

forests are:

Grizzly Bear Ecosystem Forest Management

YGBE Gallatin 80% of elk habitat effectiveness (Lyon 1979)

Targhee Manage for no net gain in open road density

NCDE Flathead 1.00 mi. open road / sq. mi.

CYE Kootenai 0.75 mi. open road / sq. mi.

Lob 0.80 mi. open road / sq. mi. (approx.)

SE & CYE Idaho Pan. Maintain 70% of MSI Habitat with no open roads.

No road density standard.

Management of road density does not usually include the consideration of the amount of use the roads

receive. McLellan (1989) reported high densities of bears concurrent with high open road density in

southeasternB.C. However, hisstudy area containsminimalpermanent humansettlement and isrelatively

remote, for the most part being more than 60 km from paved roads and towns. Except during hunting

seasons, roadsin this area receivevery lowuse. Areas with similarroad densitiesin most areas of Montana,

Idaho, Wyoming,and Washington wouldlikely bemuch nearerto paved roads andhumansettlement, and

would likely receiveconsiderably higher use. Proximity to humanpopulation centers and easeof access are

primary concerns whenconsideringthe impacts of roadson grizzlybearpopulations. The FlatheadNational

Forest has attempted to account for road use by ranking roads according to level of use.

Permanent or seasonal road closures provide intuitive solutionsto many of the problems posedby roads.

However the closingof existingroads can be difficult. Public educationandstrong enforcementare essential

Appendix B • 147
to road closure programs. The public often exerts pressure to keep roads open once they are built and the

effectiveness of road closures varies. Roads closed to public use through the use of only signs or gates are

often not effective (Zager andJonkel 1983). Fundingand personnelnecessarytomaintainroad closures and

enforce regulations are rarely adequate, resulting in limited dosure effectiveness. Roads closed with

substantial physical barriers are more effective in prohibiting vehicular traffic,but are still often accessible

by motorized all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), mountain bikes, and motorcycles. Also, long-distance visual

access along roadsin the forest environment is enhanced evenbeyond gates or other barriersbecause the

road provides avisual pathway through the forest.

Administrative use often continues behindgates on roads although such roadsare considered “closed” in

road density calculations. A recent U.S. Forest Service proposal defines a “closed” road as one which is

closed to public use and receives no more than 5 round trip administrative vehiculartrips per week. Abear

however, does not differentiatebetween agency and public use. To a bear that exhibits avoidance of road

activity, a closed road receivingadministrative use maybe no different thanan open road. Such bears will

also avoid administratively used roads. Direct risk of mortality associated with administrative use is

probably low, but continual administrative access directly contributes to habituation and a false sense of

security forbears in areas which also contain open roads.

Current road closure policies in many areas do little to minimize the negative impacts of roadsto grizzly

bears. The two majorimpacts of roadsthat occurwith either public or administrative use are 1) mortality

along roads due to habituation andincreased vulnerability and2) avoidance of habitat dueto the presence

of roads, associated vehicle noise, and human activity.

In summary, public disregard of road closures, as well as continual administrative use, often reach such

levels that the intent and objectives for the closures are no longer being met. These roads still receive

substantial levels of human use and cannot legitimately be considered “closed” for their effects on bears

when calculating the open road densities.

Recommendations for Road Management in Grizzly Habitat

A biologically sound and consistent definition of what constitutes an open road and a closed road is

fundamentalto roadmanagement. Basedon the informationpresented above, the followingdefinitions for

roads are recommended for the management of grizzly bear habitat:

CLOSED ROAD: A closed road is any constructed or evolved route previously used by motorized fourwheeled vehicles,whichis closed to publicmotorized useby gates and othermethods. Total administrative

use by motorized vehiclesshould be restrictedto oneor two periods thattogethershould not exceed 14 days

during the time bears are out of the den (usually between April 1 and November 15). Restricting

administrative use to one period reduces the possibility of habituation of bearsto roads, and reduces the

displacement ofbearsfromhabitatbecauseof randomor periodic disturbance. When roadsare not required

foradministrativeuse, or after all administrativeactivities are complete, it isrecommended that closures be

made more effective by, forexample, buildingkelly humps or tanktraps, piling logs, stumps, debris, and/

or slash across the entire road grade, or physically obliterating the passageway and replanting vegetation.

The optimum situation to maintain grizzly bear habitat effectiveness and minimize mortality risk is to

obliterate the road.

OPEN ROAD: An open road is anyconstructedor evolved route thatis passable by anytypeof four-wheel,

motorized vehicle and does not meet the requirements for closed road status as described above.

140 . Appendix B
OPEN ROAD DENSITY: Itis recommended that open road density in all MSI andM52areas within grizzly

bear recovery zones be standardized using the best available data. It is further recommended that this

standardization be accomplished though a task force of biologists appointed through the IGBC and that

these standards be adopted through the NEPA processin land management planning. This standardized

approach could take into account ancillary needsforsecurity such as road use, trail use, and the availability

and extent of security areas. In the interim priorto NEPA implementation of the taskforce recommendations, where existing open road densities are currently below 1.0 mile per square mile, it isrecommended

that these road densities not be exceededin orderto maintain management options.

CURRENTLY UNROADED AREAS: Remaining unroaded areas (as per the unroaded area definition in

Forest Plans) within recovery zones can and often do provide important refugia for grizzlies and other

wildlife such as elk, andshould be consideredespecially sensitive to further road building. Any unroaded

land represents important anduniqueopportunities to assure adequate habitatandsecurity forgrizzlybears

andotherresource valuessuch as watershedand big game security. Management should seek to maintain

these areas as unroaded wherever possible. It is further recommended that all new roads, should theybe

built, in previously unroaded areas (those areas currently identified as inventoried “roadless” under

existing forest plans) be closed to non-official useduring the activity,be of low standard, and be obliterated

and replanted after management activities are completed.

CALCULATION OF OPEN ROAD DENSITY: Current calculation of road density involves dividing the

BMU or compartment area by the number of open milesof road in the compartment. When computer-based

habitatmonitoring systemsusingCEA (cumulative effects analysis) are implemented throughout all grizzly

bear recovery zones, road density for each BMU or compartment could be calculated using a “moving

window” analysis. It is important that consideration be given to the most appropriate method to measure

road densitybecause current methods are diverse and in some casesinsufficient. The taskforce appointed

by the IGBC to set road management standards should produce recommendations on the most applicable

road density calculation method.

Appendix B • 149
Appendix C

Report of the Yellowstone

Grizzly Bear Population Task Force

April 1988
Report of the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear

Population Task Force

Equivalent Population Size for

45 Adult Females

April 5,1988

Richard Knight, Interagency Grizzly Beat Study Team — Chairman

John Beecham

Bonnie Blanchard

Lee Eberhardt

Lee Metzgar

Chris Servheen

John Talbott

— Idaho Fish and Game Department

— Interagency GrizzlyBear StudyTeam

— Battelle Northwest

— University of Montana

— U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

— Wyoming Game and FishDepartment

Appendix C • 153
Introduction

The Task Force met on February 9-10, 1988. Present were:

John Beecham, Chairman

BonnieBlanchard

Lee Eberhardt

Lee Metzgar

Chris Servheen

John Talbott

The objectives of the Task Force as directed by the IGBC at their December 1987 meeting were as follows:

1. Estimate equivalent population size that might be present if there were 45 adult females in the

population.

2. Estimate total mortality (natural plus known man-caused and unknown man-caused) that the

Yellowstone grizzly bear population could sustain given the existence of 45 adult females.

Methods and Data Used

The Task Force agreed to use the data set beginning in 1975 when the IGBST first started radio-tracking

grizzly bears.Datafrom 1959 to 1973 will no longerbe used to directly assess current population conditions

because:

1. Theywere representative of atime whenfood resources andmortality effects werenot similarto

current conditions.

2. They were not collected in a similar manner to the current data in type of sampling method or

distribution of sampling.

Life tables were constructed forboth males and females. The rate of population change (r) was calculated

by usinga supervisorship schedule forfemales andthe standard Lotka equation, 1 =~eC.dlXm,(, andsolving for

r by iteration.

Survivorship(lx) schedules were takenfrom age-specific survivorship rateson bears whose fatewas known

(Table 1).The overallsurvivorship figure of 0.85 was usedforcubs because of largersamplesize andbecause

some litters were notsexed until theywere yearlings. This procedure resultedin some cubs being identified

as male or femaleonly after havingsurvived ayear.Consequently, sexed cubs were, in part,abiased sample.

Actual age-specific rates were used from the schedules from cub through 4 years of age. Since sample size

begins to decrease in older age classes, ages 5 through 12 and 13 through 22 were pooled and weighted by

sample size. Survivorship forages 5 through 12 was 0.90 for both sexes, and that forages 13 through 22 was

0.84 for both sexes.

Reproductive rate (mr) was calculated by multiplying average litter size by proportion of female cubs and

dividing by average cycle length.

Average litter size was calculated from the unduplicated sightings of females with cubs from1975 through

1987. These figures were 169 adult females and 322 female cubs for an average of 1.91.

154 • Appendix C
Table 1. Age-specific survivorship rates of Yellowstone grizzly bears.

Sample size Survivorship

All Female

81

68

43

39

35

29

29

24

24

17

18

15

14

11

10

8

6

4

3

3

3

3

3

17

20

16

16

18

15

14

14

13

10

11

8

8

6

5

5

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

Male

0.88

0.83

0.63

0.83

0.76

0.93

0.87

0.90

1.00

0.86

1.00

1.00

0.67

1.00

0.60

1.00

1.00

0.50

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

All Female

0.85

0.82

0.72

0.85

0.86

0.90

0.86

0.92

0.91

0.88

1.00

1.00

0.79

0.91

0.80

1.00

0.67

0.75

1.00

0.67

1.00

1.00

0.67

0.94

0.80

0.81

0.88

0.94

0.87

0.86

0.93

0.85

0.90

1.00

1.00

0.88

0.83

1.00

1.00

0.50

1.00

1.00

0.50

1.00

1.00

0.50

Knowingthat 45 adult females would be based on an average of 15/year (multipliedby 3), the Task Force

used a 3-year cycle length.

The Task Force used two sexratios forlitters. We used a sexratio of 51 males:49 females as indicatedby 21

completelitters capturedfrom1975-87.Thiswassupported by data from zoolitterstotaling 1,326 cubs which

also had a sex ratio of 51:49.

We alsoused an alternatecub sexratio based on totalmortality data since sexratio at deathmust ultimately

equally the sex ratio atbirth. Although most of the Task Force contended that males would be overrepresented since their wider rangingmovement patterns andheightened aggressiveness bringsthem into more

contactwith humans, weagreed to use thisalternative to give areasonable range of estimates. The sexratio

frommortality data was 58:42 based on asample size of 104 known-sex mortalities of all agesfrom 1975-87.

Stable age structures formales and females were calculated from the life tables. A stabilized survivorship

schedule was obtainedby multiplying each original l,~ value by e~.These were then summed andeach new

value was divided by the sum to obtain the proportion of bears in each age class.

Age Male

Cub

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

24

24

24

23

17

14

15

10

11

7

7

7

6

5

5

3

2

2

1

1

I

I

I

Appendix C • 155
The proportion of males in the population was calculated as:

Pm =

R Cf

R C~ +

Where R = sex ratio at birth (males/ females);

Cf and Cm = proportions of females and males respectively in the stable age structure.

Age classes 5 and above were classified as adults. Using proportions in each category from the stable age

structuremultiplied by appropriate sex proportion in the population, proportionsof subadult males, adult

males,subadult females, andadult females were calculated.The equivalenttotal population corresponding

to 45 adult females was then calculated as:

45

Proportion adult females

Sustainable mortality was calculated by prorating’animals into each age class usingthe stable age structure

and multiplying by respective age-specific mortality rates.

Results and Discussion

Two annual reproductive rates using the two different litter sex ratios were calculated as follows

1.91 (.49) = .312

3

1.91 (.42) = .267

3

Combining these rateswith the survivorship schedule in Table 1 produced rates of population change (r) of

0.0158 and 0.00075, respectively.These two rates, in conjunctionwith the survivorship schedule, produced

stable age structures as shown in Table 2.

Proportion of males in each population was computed as:

for 51:49 R = 1.041

cm = 0.1896

= 0.1497

gives P = .4511

and for 58:42 R = 1.381

cm = 0.1760

= 0.1368

gives ~m= .5177

156 • Appendix C
Table 2. Calculated stable age structures for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. The proportion in

each age (S~) is calculated as = 1

r = .0158 (49% female cubs)

Proportion of each sex

in population

Male

.1896

.1587

.1296

.0804

.0657

.0491

.0440

.0394

.0353

.0316

.0283

.0254

.0227

.0190

.0159

.0133

.0011

.0093

.0078

.0065

.0055

.0046

.0038

.0032

.9998

Female

.1497

.1252

.0986

.0786

.0681

.0630

.0561

.0500

.0445

.0397

.0353

.0315

.0281

.0250

.0209

.0175

.0146

.0122

.0102

.0086

.0072

.0060

.0050

.0042

.9998

r = .00075 (42% female cubs)

Proportion of each sex

in population

Male

.1760

.1495

.1240

.0781

.0647

.0492

.0447

.0407

.03 70

.0336

.0306

.0278

.0253

.0215

.0182

.0155

.0132

.0112

.0095

.0081

.0068

.0058

.0049

.0042

1.0001

Female

.1368

.1162

.0929

.0752

.0661

.0621

.0562

.0508

.0459

.0415

.0376

.0340

.0307

.0278

.0236

.0200

.0170

.0145

.0123

.0104

.0089

.0075

.0064

.0054

.9998

Age

0

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Appendix C . 157
Then summing, usingage class 5 and above as adults (table 2), sex and age classes of the population were

calculated as follows:

for 51:49:

Subadult males = .6240 (.4511) = .2815

Adult males = .3760 (.4511) = .1696

Subadult females = .5202 (.5489) = .2855

Adult females = .4798 (.5489) = .2634

and for 58:42:

Subadult males = .5923 (.5177) = .3066

Adult males = .4077 (.5177) = .2111

Subadult females = .4872 (.4823) = .2350

Adult females = .5128 (.4823) = .2473

From these data, population size based on 45 adult females was calculated as:

Total = _____________________

proportion adult females

for5l:49— ____ =171

.2634

for 58:42 = _____ = 182

.2473

Therefore, ifthe data used are representativeof the population and the sexandage structurebecomes stable,

the total population that contains 45 adult females would be about 170-180 bears.

The Task Force calculated the above population could sustain a total annual mortality of 25-30 bears a year.

This includesnatural, known, and unknownman-caused mortalities.The knownand probableman-caused

and natural mortality for the period 1975-87 was 127 bears which averages 9.8 known and probable

mortalities per year.We do not know what proportion of the total mortalities(human-induced andnatural)

is representedby the known and probable sample. In the past, known and probable mortalities have been

estimated to represent as low a percentage of the total as 50%. The Task Force feels that it is reasonable to

assume the above-described population can sustain a known man-caused annual mortality of 11, two of

which can be adult females. However, we emphasize that this pertains to a future population level with a

stabilized sex and age structure. Until those conditions are realized, adult female mortality should be no

more than 1 per year for maximum population growth.

The two rates of change reported here are both positive corresponding to 0.07% and 1.5% annual rates of

increase. This isthe firsttime that positive rate of change hasbeen reported duringthe courseof the present

study. Much of the improvement can be attributed to increased female survivorship (Fig. 1) during recent

158 • Appendix C
years. Although thisis cause for optimism, it is not cause to relaxcurrent intensivemanagement efforts since

accuracy andprecision of these estimates are lowand, ifreally increasing,the population trend could easily

return downward with increasing mortality or lower natality.

The Task Force realizes that this projected value of 170-180 bears based on 45 adult females is less than a

population estimate of 183-207made in 1983.The 1983 estimatebased on 32 adult females incorporatedfor

less data andnecessarilyless sophisticatedmethodology. The minimum numberin the 1983 report was 139.

Thiswasthenextrapolated to the 183-207 figure using two sighting efficiency estimates.We nowbelieve that

the application of sighting efficiency estimates cannot be substantiated since there is no way to assess their

accuracy and they are therefore little better than guesses. The Task Force thus emphasizes that figures given

in this report should not be compared to earlier estimates.

Figure 1. Comparison of grizzly bear survivorship between 1983 and 1987.

1.0

0.9

X 0.8

w

.~ 0.7

0

I.— O.6 -J

> 0.5

~ Q.4~

(0

0.3

0.2

0.1 -

2 6 10 14 18 20 24

AGE

Appendix C • 159
John Beecham

=O7~( ~JAk&

Bonnie Blanchard

Lee Eberhardt.

(l~~ k~—~

Chris Servheen

/9

2?9 /‘ 11~

ohn Talboti

414

Richard

,&~A Knigk’~

160 • Appendix C
Appendix D

Yellowstone Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Survivorship Table
Yellowstone Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Survivorship Table

Survivorship

Survivorshipof marked animalsthrough 1992 is given in Table 5. Both males and females have thelowest

chance of surviving their2-year-oldyear, the time most young areweaned. Females have a greater chance

of surviving after 5 years than they did during 1987.

Table 5. Grizzly bear survivorship by sex and age class

Sample size Survivorship

All Female

112

101

54

54

53

27

26

23

25

26

Male

0.88

0.78

0.68

0.86

0.81

All Female

0.83

0.84

0.76

0.87

0.85

0.89

0.85

0.83

0.88

0.88

137 374 127 0.80 0.83 0.87

26 52 26 0.73 0.81 0.88

17 46 29 0.88 0.91 0.93

11 39 28 0.91 0.92 0.93

15 40 25 1.00 0.93 0.88

11 27 16 0.91 0.93 0.94

11 30 19 1.00 1.00 1.00

11 25 14 1.00 1.00 1.00

9 21 12 0.67 0.81 0.92

111 280 169 0.87 0.91 0.93

7 16 9 1.00 0.94 0.89

8 16 8 0.75 0.S7 1.00

6 13 7 1.00 1.00 1.00

4 12 8 1.00 0.83 0.75

4 9 5 0.75 0.89 1.00

4 7 3 1.00 1.00 1.00

4 6 2 0.75 0.67 0.50

2 4 2 1.00 1.00 1.00

2 4 2 1.00 1.00 1.00

2 4 2 1.00 0.75 0.50

43 91 48 0.91 0.90 0.90

All adults:

Survival to age 5:

Total bearyears:

154 371 217 0.88

0.33

291 745

0.91

0.39

0.92

0.49

344

from: Knight et. al (1993)

AppendlxD.. 163

Age Male

Cub

1

2

3

4

26

27

28

29

27

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
Appendix E

Major Changes from the 1982 Plan to the

1993 Revised Plan
Major Changes from the 1982 Plan to the 1993 Revised Plan

Delineation of Recovery Zones

The 1982 plan called for the determination of occupied space and habitat to specify the habitat required for

the achievement of recovery goals. This term is no longer used because of the difficultyin determiningwhat

is occupied habitat. Therevised planincludes grizzlybear “recovery zones”. Recovery zones are thoseareas

within which grizzly bears and grizzly bear habitat will be managed for recovery and within which

population parameters will be monitored. Recovery zones have been established in the Yellowstone,

Northern Continental Divide, Cabinet-Yaak, and Selkirk Ecosystems. Grizzly bear recovery zones are

currently being delineated in the NorthCascades and Bitterroots Ecosystems.

Revised Population Monitoring Methods

The 1982 plancalled for the development of population monitoringmethods. The revised plan describes

a monitoring methodwhich uses three measurable parameters as indicators of populationstatus: 1) number

of females with cubs; 2) the number of known human-caused mortalities; 3) the distributionof family groups

throughout the ecosystem. These parameters are used to set recovery criteria and targets.

Revised Population Targets

The 1982 plan used population targets including reproductive rate, average litter size, reproductive

intervals, and annual totalmortality. These parameters are extremelydifficult andexpensive tomeasure in

a grizzly bear population over many years.

The revised planrelieson targetsthat are more easily measured on an annual basis. The revised plan seeks

to assure apopulation of adequate size to offset the amount of human-causedgrizzlymortality whichoccurs

in that population. The targets in the revised planinclude aknownminimumnumber of adult femalebears

whichis used to determine a minimum estimate of the population. This minimum population estimate is

used to calculate a conservative limit on known human-caused grizzly mortalities. Eachyear the limit on

annual mortality will change according to the number of adult females known to be alive that year. In

contrast, the 1982 plan had a fixed annual mortality limitfor each population. The revised plan’s floating

mortality limit is based on a minimum population size and will allow for increases or decreases in that

minimum population. Finally, the revised plan also calls for the distribution of family groupsthroughout

the ecosystem to assure that habitat management throughout the ecosystem is conducive to recovery.

Linkage Zone Assessment

Fragmentation of habitat and the eventual isolation of these fragmented parcels is recognized as a major

factor contributingto the demise of wildlife species. The five known grizzly bear populations in the lower

48 states are largely ifnot completelyisolated from each other, although four are contiguous withCanadian

bear populations. The 1982 plan did not addressthe issue of linkage between the ecosystems.

The revised recovery plan includes a discussion of the importance of linkages between grizzly bear

ecosystems and identifies problems associated with the fragmentation of habitat within ecosystems. The

FWS has initiateda five-yearpilotstudyt~ assess the fragmentationwithin ecosystems andthe potentialfor

movement of bears between existing ecosystems. Information gained will be used to develop long term

habitatconservation strategiesto conserve, or restore where possible, the connectivity within and between

ecosystems. Such information can be used to develop strategies for public lands as well as cooperative

public-private land management efforts.

AppendixE • 167
Conservation Strategy

The revisedplan callsfor the development of a conservation strategyfor each grizzly bearpopulation prior

to its delisting. The conservation strategywill be developed through an interagency process and will detail

the population monitoringstrategies andthe populationandhabitat managementmeasuresthatwill remain

in effect after delisting. The strategies detailed in the conservation strategy are intended to ensure that

relisting of the population will not be necessary. All participatingfederal and state agencies will sign the

document and agree to its provisions.

Long-term Strategy forYellowstone Population

The Yellowstone grizzly bear population is the only one of five grizzly populations that is completely

isolated from populations in otherU.S. ecosystems and Canada. The population has approximately 300

bears. The population’ssmall size and isolation make it vulnerable to the detrimental effects of the loss of

geneticdiversity, andto environmentalanddemographic stochasticity. Connectivitybetweenthe Yellowstone

Grizzly BearEcosystem and other grizzly ecosystemsis not likely to be realizedin the nearfuture because

of the distance to other ecosystems and the intervening human development and alteration of landscape.

Therefore, the recovery plan recommends that one grizzly be placed into the ecosystem from an outside

population every ten years as an effort to maintain the genetic health of the population.

168 • AppendixE
Appendix F

Revised Reporting Rules for Recovery Plan

July 12,1992

Targets
Revised Reporting Rules for Recovery Plan Targets, July 12,1992

Agreed:

1. Unduplicated females with cubs will be counted inside or within 10 miles of the Recovery Zone line.

2. Females with cubs or family groups in Canada will not be counted toward recovery targets for the

NCDE or CYE.

3. Family group sightings/radio locations count towards occupancy targets each time a credible observation is recorded within the Recovery Zone.

4. Occupancy wll be documented onlywithin BMU linesand within the Recovery Zone, exceptin cases

wherethe monitoringreview team makes a special exceptionand documentsthe reason for doing so.

5. Sighting data will be summarized by age of offspring to assess the possibility of using female with

yearling sightings to backdate to females with cubs.

6. Includefemales with cubstowardsthe unduplicated femalewith cubs evenwhentheyloose their cubs

(because thisis an index that is minimally dependent on marked bears).

7. Mortality of females with offspringwill not count as an observation. Only females alive when seenwith

cubs will be counted toward the unduplicated count for that year.

8. Mortality of adult females (=5years) will be subtracted from a 3-year running sum of unduplicated

females with cubsto estimate theminimumpopulation alive andthe resultant4 percentmortality level.

9. Managementrelocations count toward unduplicated females with cubs(whenwith cubs)even though

the family group ismoved.

10. Management relocations will not count towards BMU occupancy in the old or new location, or

subsequent movements. The femalewould countfor occupancy in the nextyear ifsightedagainafter

1 year from initial relocation date.

Year New Femael with Cubs

NCDE

Old Female With Cubs

Inside Recovery Zone

Within 10 Miles of

Recovery Zone

1987 29 27 2

1988 25 25 0

1989 38 34 3

1990 14 12 2

1991 21 20 1

1992 22 22 0

These numbers have not yet been calculated for other ecosystems.

Appendix F • 171
Appendix G

Summary of the Public Comments
Summary of the Public Input Content Analysis

for the 1992 Draft Revision of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan

In September, 1990, the U.S. Fish andWildlifeService (Service) released the firstrevision of the 1982 Grizzly

Bear Recovery Plan (Plan) forthe lower 48 states. Input on the revision was received from the agencies of

the Interagency Grizzly BearCommittee (IGBC). In addition to an agency review, the draft was available

for public comment from September 1990 to February 1991. Eleven public meetings were held in Idaho,

Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Colorado, and Washington,D.C.

In July, 1992, the Servicereleased the second revision of the Plan. Againthe Service received inputfrom all

IGBC agenciesas well as otherstate andfederal agencies. Apublic comment period on the second revision

of the Plan extended from July 1992 to October 1992.

This reportsummarizes the content of public comments on the second revision of the Plan. A total of 2113

letters was received, each containing varyingnumbers of comments. Many specific comments re-occurred

in letters. A total of 70 different comments re-occurred often in the letters received. Each of these 70

comments wastallied from all letters. Because many letters contained more than one comment, the number

of comments tallied exceeds the number of letters received.

This report provides a summary of general demographic informationincluding the total number of letters

received fromvarious affiliations and states. It alsoprovidesasummary of the 70 major comments and the

total number of times a particular comment appeared in the letters. A more detailed breakdown by State

of the number of each comment received is available from the office of the Grizzly Bear Recovery

Coordinator, Ivlissoula, Montana.

Agency comments are notincluded in the totals. Commentsreceived fromthe agencies were typically very

specific and unique to an agency. The Service received three petitions containing comments on the plan.

Petitions are not included in the totals. All agency letters and petitions, along with all letters of comment

on the Plan, are kept on file in the office of the GrizzlyBear Recovery Coordinator,Missoula, Montana.

Demographic Information

The following is abreakdown of the number of lettersreceived from various affiliations:

business/ industry 27 letters

environmental/ conservation organizations 46 letters

multiple use/recreation organizations 15 letters

academia / professional 19 letters

local government 1 letter

individual responses

original letters 1427 letters

form letters 312 letters

form letters with additional comments 266 letters

AppendixG • 175
The following is a breakdown of the number of lettersreceived by state:

AKO HIO MEl NM7 TN3

ALl IAl M17 NVI TX2O

ARO 1D212 MN17 NYlO2 UT14

AZil 1L22 M03 OHiO VA6

CA93 1N6 MSO 01(5 VIO

CO 72 KSO MT714 0R13 VTO

CT 8 KY 5 NC 5 PA 14 WA 208

DEl LA3 NDO R119 W14

FL3O MA4S NH2 5C3 WVO

GA9 MD1O NJ51 5D3 WY274

District of Columbia 3

Canada I

Summary of Comments

Comment Comment Description # Comments

Received

General Comments

C37 Letter contained no specifics, but indicated general support for 194

the recovery plan, but stressed the need for even more

stringent measures to conserve grizzly bears.

C36 Letter contained few specifics, but indicated that the plan is 476

inadequate to protect grizzly bears and must be strengthened or

withdrawn.

C35 General opposition to the grizzly bearrecovery plan, and/or 100

agency efforts to recover grizzly bears.

C44 Letter contained few specifics, but indicated general opposition 17

to grizzly bears and grizzly bear recovery efforts.

C53 Letter indicated general support for grizzly bears and grizzly bear recovery, 243

but indicated that the plan istoo restrictive of human uses of natural resources.

Comments Regarding Grizzly Habitat

Cl Plan failsto address current management practices in grizzly bear habitat, 401

and failsto provide mechanisms to halt the on-going loss of habitat effectiveness.

C2 Grizzly bear habitat protection and preservation should take precedence 557

over humanuses of natural resources such as logging,

mining, recreation, roading, and livestockgrazing.

176 AppendixG
C3 The plan should include a number of specific habitat protection measures, 184

such as timing restrictions on logging and other humanuses and activities,

security zones, displacement areas, and restrictions on the size of cutting units.

C4 The road density standard of 1 mile of open road per square mile 180

of habitat recommended in the plan istoo high and should be reduced,

and/or support for a more restrictive standard in the plan.

CS Support closing more roadsto improve grizzly bear habitat. 349

C6 Increase the size of recovery zones. The recovery zones should be based 638

on the biological needs of grizzly bear, and/ or whereverbears occur,

and/or should not be based on political boundaries.

C7 Support the consideration of linkage zones, and/or the plan should include 745

measures for the immediate protection of linkage zones, and/or reduce the

5-year time frame for the study of linkage zones to 2 or 3 years to expedite

conservation of the zones.

C57 The plan should specify protection for insect feed sites. 1

C61 Critical habitatshould be designated forgrizzly bears. 20

C62 The plan should require the agenciesto use an ecosystem approach to 20

habitat and wildlife management.

C8 Opposed to increasing the size of the recovery zones, and/or opposed 91

to additional recovery zones to facilitate the recovery of grizzly bears.

C9 Strong reservations about the implications of potential linkage zone 73

management, and/or opposed to the concept and/or study of

linkage zones between grizzly bear ecosystems.

ClO Habitat that is suitable for grizzly bears, but currently unoccupiedby grizzlies, 18

should not be protected or managed as occupied habitat.

CII The road density standard recommended in the plan of I mile 32S

of open road per square mile of habitatis too restrictive, and/ or opposed

to road closures for grizzly bear conservation.

C70 The plan gives too much authority to the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, 12

and/ or the plan should not allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

authority over the U.S. Forest Service in management decisionsinvolving

National Forest lands.

AppendixG 177
Comments on Grizzly Populations and Recovery Criteria

C12 The plan should indude the San JuansWilderness in Colorado as a grizzly 449

bearrecovery zone, and/or the plan should include the specific details

necessary to begin the evaluation of the San Juans for grizzly bear recovery.

C13 Support for the recovery of grizzly bearsin the BitterrootMountains 53

of Idaho and Montana.

C14 Support for the recovery of grizzly bearsin the North Cascades Mountains 90

of Washington.

C56 Support for the recovery of grizzly bears in the Selkirk Mountains of Idaho 55

and Washington.

CiS The Loomis State Forest of Washington should be included in the North 57

Cascades grizzly bear recovery zone.

C16 The grizzly bear population in the Mission Mountains of Montana 36

requires special attentionand / or protection.

C17(60) Support the recovery of grizzly bears in other parts of the United States 47

wherever suitable habitat occurs, and/ or in the Gila-Blue Mountains

Wilderness of New Mexico, the Wind Riverregion of Wyoming, and others.

C18 Support for reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot Mountains 10

of Idaho and Montana.

C19 Support for reintroduction or augmentation of grizzly bears wherever 57

necessary for the recovery of grizzly populations.

C28 The plan should require 100% occupancy of Bear Management Units 114

(BMUs) for population recovery criteria.

C29 Recovery plan population targets are too low, and/or the plan should 592

require a minimum of 2000 grizzly bears in the U.S.

C30 The allowablehuman-caused grizzly mortality goals are too high, 271

allowable human-caused mortality should be lowered, or zero.

C31 The methods recommended in the plan to estimate grizzly bear 31

populations are not reliable.

C32 The United States should work to increase the number of grizzly bears 8

in the U.S., and should not reLy on Canadian grizzly populations to

ensure sustainable grizzly populations in the U.S.

178 Appendix G
C49(50) Opposed to delisting any grizzly populations at thistime, and/or opposed 53

to delisting individual grizzly bear populations, and/or opposed to

delisting any grizzly population until thereis a minimum of 2000

grizzlies in the U.S.

CM Opposed to the recovery of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Mountains 29

of Idaho and Montana.

C25 Opposed to the recovery of grizzly bears in the North Cascades 29

Mountains of Washington.

C27 Opposed to the recovery of grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak 24

ecosystem of Montana and northern Idaho.

C20 Opposed to the augmentation of the grizzly bearpopulation in the 9

North Cascades Mountains of Washington.

C26 Opposed to the recovery of grizzly bears in the San Juan Mountains 3

of Colorado, and/or opposed to the evaluationof the San Juan Mountains

as a grizzly bear recovery zone.

C21 Opposed to the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot Mountains 22

of Idaho and Montana.

C22 Opposed to the augmentation of the grizzly bear population in the 12

Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem of Montana and northern Idaho.

C23 Opposed to the reintroduction or augmentation of grizzly bear 10

populations anywhere.

C33 Opposed to anyconstraints or “taking” (from an involuntary seller) 47

of private lands for grizzly bearrecovery, and/ or the plan threatens

private property rights.

C34 Opposed to the government acquiring (from a voluntary seller) 200

private land for grizzly bear recovery.

C45 Support delisting of the NCDE and/ or Yellowstone ecosystems, and / or 33

all populations.

C54 The recovery plan population criteria are too stringent, of private and/or 72

current grizzly populations are acceptable, there is no need to increase them.

C59 The plan should recommend alimited nuisance bear huntto 5

alleviate the number of nuisance bears, and/or a limited sport hunt

conducted under proper management, and/or should recognize a

limited hunt as a wildlife management tool and valid recreational

use of a natural resource.

Appendix G • 179
Comments on Other Aspects of Grizzly Recovery

C48 Endthe use of hounds andbait to hunt blackbears within 66

recovery zones, and/or eliminate all blackbear huntingwithin

recovery zones.

C51 There is aneed for more public information and education about 38

grizzly bears, their biological needs, and the recovery process.

C52(58) There is aneed for more research on the needs of grizzly bears, 12

and/or for more research into aversive conditioningof nuisance bears.

C38 The recovery measures recommended in the plan will negatively 703

affect local economies and livelihoods.

C39 The recovery plan and recovery efforts are too costly, and/or a 61

waste of tax dollars.

C40 The plan should consider the affects of grizzly recovery on 178

local economies.

C41 The recovery measures recommended in the plan will negatively 119

affect recreation opportunities.

C42 Concerned forhuman safety as grizzly bear populations increase, 91

and/or opposed to recovery because grizzly bears are too dangerous.

C43 Extinction is a natural process and should be accepted, and/or bears 16

as a species must exist on their ownwithout measures specified

in the recovery plan.

C63 The plan should assessthe impacts of increased grizzly bear 4

populations on other wildlife.

C55 Support for the 1982 recovery plan, the new plan makes unnecessary 20

changesin recovery efforts.

C46 Increase public input in the recovery process,including the 15

development of the recovery plan.

C47 The recovery plan should not be categorically excluded from the provisions 310

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and/or an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) should be developed to assessthe impacts of the

recommendations of the grizzly bear recovery plan.

C64 The plan should address compensation for personal loss or injury, 158

and economic loss associated with the recovery of grizzly bears.

180 Appendix G
C65 The plan should provide forfunding for nuisance bearmonitoring 157

programs to protect human safety and property.

C66 The plan should provide for funding for increased public information 3

and education regarding the recovery of grizzly bears.

C67 The plan should specify that an economic impact analysis be 160

conducted to assess the impacts of grizzly bear recovery on local

and/or regional economics.

C68 (69) The needs of people must take precedence over the needs of 26

grizzly bears, and/ or the plan should balance the needs of bears

and people, and/or people aremore importantthan animals.

Appendix 6 • 181